HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1981 - N
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 26, 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2] 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Request Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a game room center in existing structure at 112 Lewis ,
a B-3 (Central Business Zone) . (PC 81-9C)
Applicant : Michael Sullivan & Delbert O' Sickey, 11 Valley Green
Jordan, Mn. 55352
Appeal : Applicant is appealing Planning Commission' s denial
Action: Approve Conditional Use Permit Res . No. 272 , or Adopt
Res . No. 1845, Denying Conditional Use Permit Request
3] 8: 00 P.M. - Continuation of the Board of Review [Motion that the
findings of the Board of Review be approved and sent to the
County Auditor for certification]
4] 8: 30 P.M. - Joint Meeting with the Shakopee Planning Commission on the
Minnesota Valley Mall Traffic Circulation Study
5] Agenda Items from May 19th Council Meeting:
a] Urban Corp Work-Study Agreement (bring 11g)
b] Reverse Referendum To Increase the Levy Limit Base (bring 11h)
c ] 1981-82 License Renewals - tabled 5/19/81 (memo on table)
aa] 3. 2 Beer - Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses
bb] Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
cc] Club On Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
dd] Set-Up Licenses
d] Service Contract Between Valleyfair, Inc . , and the City - tbld 5/19
6] Other Business :
a] Appointment to Ad Hoc Downtown Committee - Nominations
b]
c ]
7 ] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Game Room Center
DATE: May 20, 1981
Introduction:
Michael Sullivan and Delbert O'Sickey are appealing to the City Council
the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a game
room center in the former Ben Franklin building (112 Lewis Street).
Background:
The Planning Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit by a 4-2 vote at
their April 9, 1981 meeting. The staff report to the Planning Commission
and the Planning Commission minutes concerning this matter are attached for
your review.
Because the parking of patron bicycles was a major issue at the Planning
Commission meeting, discussion occurred concerning the strip of open land
along the rear of the former Ben Franklin building (west side of building).
Questions arose as to whether or not this area could serve as a bicycle
parking area. The staff consulted with the City Assessor who determined that
according to his records, the strip of land in question is actually owned
by the V.F.W. Therefore, bicycle parking would not be permitted on this
property unless approved by the V.F.W.
Alternatives:
The City Council could either:
1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit;
2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions;
3. Deny the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that if the Conditional
Use Permit is approved by the City Council, the following conditions be
considered as a part of that approval.
John Anderson -2- May 20, 1981 n
dl
1) Two adult supervisors age 21 or older be present during
peak use hours to effectively operate the business. The
operators of the game room center shall not permit congregations
of patrons or excessive noise to occur at the exterior of the
business;
2) So as to mitigate potential adverse effects on existing
neighboring businesses and residences (apartments), operating
hours on Friday and Saturday shall be limited to a 10:30 PM closing
time. The proposed operating hours for the remaining days shall
be 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Monday through Thursday and Noon to
8:00 PM on Sundays.
3) The applicant shall submit a plan which effectively deals
with patron bicycle parking;
4+) Any bicycle parking to the rear of the building be fenced;
5) The dumpster in the rear alley shall be enclosed (screened)
and the applicant shall submit a plan indicating how trash
and litter will be managed on the site;
6) Maximum occupancy of 50 persons;
7) Six month renewal of Conditional Use Permit by Planning
Commission
DS/j iw
Attachments
DATE: April 9, 1981
CASE : PC 81-9C
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit (Game Room Center)
APPLICANT: Michael Sullivan and Delbert O ' Sickey,
LOCATION: 112 Lewis Street
ZONING : B-3 , Central Business District
LAND USE : Vacant Commercial Building
LOT AREA: 4 ,650 Square Feet
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6 ; Section 11. 31,
Subd. 3A
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6A
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal :
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the operation of a game room center at the
above location.
Land Use Compatibility :
The game room center is proposed to be located in the
former Ben Franklin building. The area is zoned B-3, Central
Business District and is surrounded by typical downtown land
uses : retail shops , services , entertainment businesses, second
story apartments , parking lots , etc .
Considerations :
1. The game room center is proposed to be located in the
building formerly occupied by the Ben Franklin store. The 4 ,575
square feet of floor area is intended to be used for game room
equipment consisting of pinball machines , foosball, pool tables,
electronic games , etc . Food vending machines and restrooms are
also included in the floor plan. Commercial amusement operations
require a Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 Zone .
2. It is anticipated that the proposed use will be an
attraction for a younger clientele (primarily teenagers) . Because
of this, several concerns need to be raised :
PC 81-9C April 9, 1981
Sullivan/O' Sickey Page -2-
a) The need may exist to supervise the younger
users of the game room center. The applicant
has indicated that two adult employees will
be available for the center' s operation and
supervision.
b) The proposed hours of operation are : Monday -
Thursday, 10 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM; Friday and
Saturday, 10 : 00 AM to 11: 00 PM; Sunday, Noon
to 8 : 00 PM. City curfew hours for minors under
age 16 are from 10 : 30 PM to 5 : 00 AM. Because
the center' s operating hours extend beyond
the curfew hours on Friday and Saturday evenings,
enforcement of curfew hours could be difficult.
c) With a younger clientele, the use of bicycles
to the game room center is increased. No facilities
currently exist or are planned by the applicant
for the parking of bicycles . Due to the relative
narrowness of the front sidewalk, the parking of
bicycles at this location could become a signifi-
cant problem. The rear alley is also highly
restrictive to the parking of bicycles .
d) Although the rear alley could accommodate a
dumpster for trash, an exterior litter problem
must also be addressed. Vending machines , such
as are planned in the center, tend to promote
exterior litter due to the type of food product
sold (snack-type food) .
3. The existing building has no on-site parking available,
which is typical of most businesses in the downtown. Parking does
exist within close proximity to the proposed game room center,
both on-street and within municipal parking lots . The block
of Lewis Street , within which the center is proposed to be located,
contains approximately 18 on-street parking stalls and 43 parking
lot stalls (across the street ) . A considerable number of both
on-street and parking lot stalls also exist within a city block of
the proposed business . Parking is shared by all businesses in the
downtown and the demand for parking varies by time of day and day
of the week.
4 . Signing for the proposed game room center is intended
to be placed on the upper front of the exterior of the building
(above the awning) .
5. A major factor to be considered when reviewing the
game room center proposal is the potential effect of the operation
on neighboring businesses and residences ( 2nd story apartments) .
Should a younger clientele prove to be the dominant user of the
center, congregations of youths and resulting noise may have a
PC 81-9C April 9, 1981
SullivanJO' Sickey Page -3-
detrimental effect on existing businesses in the immediate area.
Apartment dwellers in the vicinity of the center may also be
adversely affected, particularly by any noise factor. Mitigat-
ing any potential detrimental affect on the surrounding land
uses should receive a high priority.
Staff Recommendations :
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to allow a game room center with the following conditions :
1) Two adult supervisors shall be present during peak
use hours to effective operate the business . The
operators of the game room center shall not permit
congregations of patrons or excessive noise to occur
at the exterior of the business .
2) So as to mitigate potential adverse effects on
existing neighboring businesses and residences
(apartments ) , operating hours on Friday and Saturday
shall be limited to a 10 : 30 PM closing time . The
proposed operating hours for the remaining days
shall be 10 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM, Monday through Thurs-
day and Sunday, Noon to 8 : 00 PM, (as stated earlier
in this report ) .
3) The applicant shall submit a plan which effectively
deals with patron bicycle parking.
4) The dumpster in the rear alley shall be enclosed
and the applicant shall submit a plan indicating
how trash and litter will be managed on the site.
5) The Conditional Use Permit shall be renewed annually
to review the operation of the game room center.
The Permit can, however, be revoked at any time
throughout each year if the conditions are neglected.
Planning Commission Action :
Denied subject to City Code requirements of Section 11. 04,
Subd. 6 A, Items No. 1 and 9.
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
DS J j iw
• Shakopee Planning Commission
April 9, 1981
Page 3
a) Submission of a dust control plan subject to approval of the City
Engineer
b) Verification of the structural capacity of the sanitary sewer for
parking and loading
c) Specific designation of the exterior storage area screened in accordance
with the ordinance
Motion carried unanimously
Public Hearing - Sullivan/0'Sicke�r Conditional Use Permit (PC 81-9C):
Perusich/Vierling moved to open the public hearing for a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for the operation of a game room center in a B-3 (Central Business)
Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner elaborated that this proposed game room would be located in the
former Ben Franklin building, located at 112 Lewis and the proposed use will be
primarily teenagers. The Planner presented several concerns, foremost of which was
lack of provision for bicycles and the noise and litter effects on surrounding
businesses and residences.
The owners stated they would be hiring supervisors and did not foresee themselves
as being actively involved in supervision. They also stated they expected a maximum
of 50 patrons. They explained their idea of providing bicycle racks in a 3 foot area
at the rear of the building.
Comm. Coller expressed his concern for the safety of patrons using these bicycle
*44 racks because of the limited access to the building, and the requirement of keeping
the sidewalk clear for pedestrians. He asked if George Muenchow had reviewed the
application regarding traffic and patrons.
City Planner stated he had forwarded it to him, and had received nothing back.
Clarence Engh stated he was the owner of the Kopp building and Shakopee Floral, which
will be vacated, and he is concerned with the attitude of the kids in that building
and how it will affect tenants in his building.
Cindy Anderson, manager of the VFW, expressed her concern about bicycles, litter and
vandalism and the close proximity of juveniles to the VFW. She also stated that she
understood the easement between the two buildings belonged to the VFW.
Wally Perry suggested that if one parking space was eliminated for vehicles and re-
stricted to bicycles, it amounted to private parking for the business, and if it was
done for one business, other businesses would have a right to request it.
Another member of the audience said he didn't believe this was the best type of traf-
fic to put in the downtown business district. He expressed his concern with having
youngsters around during hours when the other downtown businesses were closed.
Harry Rolflect explained he was with the police department, and based on his experience
as a juvenile officer, he just couldn't see that it would be an asset to the downtown
area or to the tax payers of the community in terms of police service.
Considerable similar discussion took place.
Coller/Vierling moved to close the public-hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
•
Proceedings of the April 9, 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -4-
Coller/Vierling
age -4-Coller/Vierling moved to deny Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272, the
granting of a game room center in a L-3 Zone, based on Shakopee City Code
Section 11.04, Subd. A, Items No. 1 and 9, which state:
Item No. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity. -
Item No. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Chrm. Schmitt informed the Commissioners that if they voted to disapprove, the deci-
sion could be appealed to the City Council and then the Commission will not see the
application again, unless the Council referred it back.
The City Planner read the list of considerations for Conditional Use Permit.
Comm. Rockne left at this point, 9:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Ayes; Koehnen, Vierling, Stoltzman, Coller
Noes; Schmitt, Perusich
Motion carried (Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272 denied)
Chrm. Schmitt informed the applicants that they have a right to appeal within 7 days
by notification to the City, at which time it will be placed on the City Council
agenda, and they have a right to be heard again at that time.
i Coller/Koehnen moved that staff be directed to summarize and put on record should the
application be appealed that the maximum occupancy of 50 persons be identified, and
that the bicycle parking be addressed, and that a 6 month renewal be recommended in-
stead of one year, in addition to the recommendations presented by staff. Motion
carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to have the license checked and to investigate the business of
game machines which operates in the back of the Eagle Pet Shop to see if it conforms
to the ordinance, and that necessary steps be taken to bring it into compliance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Amending City Code, Section 4.30 - Sign Ordinance
Vierling/Perusich moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there were none.
Perusich/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the newly revised
Sign Ordinance with the changes presented this evening. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Amending City Code, Section 11.24, Subd. 3 - Height Limitations
Coller/Vierling moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission clarified the fact that the intent of using the word "structures" was
to include the new height limitations.
Chrm. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience, and there was none.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 272
WHEREAS, Michael Sullivan & Delbert O'Sickey , having duly filed
an application for a conditional use permit data—March 26, 1981 5
under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, as follows :
to operate a game room center in an
B-3 (Central Business) zone area, and,
WHEREAS, Said proposed facility is to be located in an existing
structure at 112 Lewis
WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is
described as follows : Lots 6 and 7, Block 23, Original Shakopee Plat
NOW THEREFORE, Upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the
City Planner, and upon considering the suggestions and objections
raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet
thereof in public hearing duly held thereon, and upon determining
that the granting of this conditional use permit is necessary for
said applicant , and will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property, or unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets , or increase any public hazard nor diminish
property values in the surrounding areas , nor impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property,
that adequate utilities , access roads , drainage and other necessary
facilities have been or are being provided, that the land use is
reasonably related to overall city needs and to existing land uses ,
nor is it in any respect contrary to the intent, purpose, or objectives
of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate or the Shakopee
Comprehensive Guide Plan:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned conditional use permit application
be and hereby is APPROVED subject to the following conditiodgCcxm
XXdX XiKalpaWaittit3DOCX
1) Two adult supervisors age 21 or older be present during peak use hours to
effectively operate the business. The operators of the game room center shall
not permit congregations of patrons or excessive noise to occur at the exterior
of the business;
2) So as to mitigate potential adverse effects on existing neighboring businesses &
residences (apartments), operating hours on Friday and Saturday shall be limited
to a 10:30 AM closing time. The proposed operating hours for the remaining days
shall be 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Monday through Thursday and Noon to b:00 PM on
Sundays;
3) The applicant shall submit a plan which effectively deals with patron bicycle
parking;
4) Any bicycle parking to the rear of the building be fenced;
5) The dumpster in the rear alley shall be enclosed (screened) and the applicant
shall submit a plan indicating how trash and litter will be managed on the site;
6) Maximum occupancy of 50 persons;
7) Six month renewal of Conditional Use Permit by Planning Commission
Mayor -of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1961.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1845
A Resolution Denying A Request
For A Conditional Use Permit For A
Game Room Center
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on April
9, 1981, to consider the request of Michael Sullivan and Delbert O'Sickey,
Route 1 Box 127 C, Jordan, Minnesota, for a request to operate a game room
center in a B-3 (Central Business) Zone; and
WHEREAS, public input was heard and considered at said public hearing at
which time all persons desiring to speak were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission raised questions concerning noise
and litter to surrounding permitted uses which could result from the granting
of Conditional Use Permit No. 272, allowing for a game room center in a B-3 Zone;
and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission also raised questions of bicycle
provisions which may cause undue traffic congestion and create an unsafe situation
for patrons in the vicinity of the proposed game room center; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission on April 9, 1981, at said public
hearing, denied Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272, by a 4 to 2 vote;
and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did on May 26, 1981 hold a public hearing
on the request for Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272, allowing for the
operation of a game room center in a B-3 Zone and where all persons present
were again permitted to speak and have their input considered; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council at their meeting of May 26, 1981 concurred
with the Planning Commission on their concerns and questions raised regarding
traffic congestion, bicycle safety and hazards involved to the permitted uses
in the proposed said game room center vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the City Council concurs with the decision of the Shakopee
Planning Commission and hereby denies Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 272,
a request for a game room center in a B-3 (Central Business) Zone because the
following requirements from the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.04, Subd. 6A cannot
be met:
Resolution No. 1845 Page Two p/
Item No. 1. That the Conditional Use Permit will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose
already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the immediate vicinity; and
Item No. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property
for uses predominant in the area; and
Item No. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and
Item No. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected
because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise,
glare or general unsightliness.
Adopted in session of the city council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1981.
ATTEST:
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT. K AWASAKI
DATE: May 21t 1981
Introduction :
To clarify the Kawasaki valuation procedure, I have contacted
the State Department of Equalization nn that we might receive
an opinion of how the Kawasaki property should be valued .
Background :
On May 21 , 1981 , Bill Slavin & Wynn Carlson, from the State
Department and I re-inspected the subject property.
After our inspection we reviewed the valuation process used for
the 80 and 81 assessment and the recommended adjusted valuation.
It was their opinion that the highest and best use of the
property (engineering and research) did not change ; however,
they felt that an update of the actual construction costs for
valuation is a dangerous process because it does not necessarily
lend itself to alternate engineering and research uses.
With the above in mind it was their opinion that a proper•
valuation would be to consider the subject property as an engineering
and research center of its quality and class, and value it using
the Marshal Valuation Service to reflect the desires cf the typical
investor in the Engineering arc; Research Market .
A valuation conclusion is then calculated in the following manner.
•
Board of Review
Page 2
May 21 , 1981
Class C - Average Engineering & Research
Exterior Walls : Steel frame , brick , block
Interior Finish : Drywall , masonary , partitions, good offices
Lighting/Plumbing/Heating Ventilation and A.C . : Adequate
Base Rate 25.01
Add . 47 Cold Climate
Add 1 . 15 Sprinkler
Refined Base 2.6 . 63
26. 63
x 1 .00 Story height
x . 916 Floor area perimeter
x• 1 .02 Current Cost x a* *'
x 1 .03 Local Cost
x .93 1980 level
x . 93 Depreciation
22. 16 Modified Cost
$22.16 x 38, 528 sq . ft. = $853, 780 Indicated Bldg. Value
65 , 280 Fence , ,
22, 896 Paving .
$941 , 956 Indicated Improvement Value`` '
*Marshal Cost Index
& Trend Multipliers SAY $ 942 ,000
1 LAND 422,000
•
(1108.1 t 1028. 4) $1 , 364,000 Indicated Property Value
„ 6 +
y d ,
Board of Review
Page 3
May 21 , 1981
A second opinion of improvement value has been supplied by
Douglas Lager, a consultant from Property Tax Service Co. In
his calculations he has segregated out the different areas of
the building using the Marshall Valuation Service (a copy of
his calculations are attached for review) . Below is a summary
of his findings.
Estimated Market Value of Building $823 , 400
Estimated Value of Land Improvements 65, 250
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT VALUE $888, 650
In this calculation, value for paving was not considered; adding
for paving and land value a value conclusion is as follows:
$ 888, 650
22, 896 Paving
422,000 Land
$1 , 333, 546 Indicated Property Value
SAY $1 , 334_,Q00
A third calculation of value was made by the City Assessor
earlier. In this calculation the highest and best use of the
property was considered to have changed to Office/Warehouse/
Distribution. It reads as follows:
Class C - Good Distribution
Exterior Walls : Steel frame, brick, block
Interior Finish: Drywall , masonary, partitions, good goffices
Lighting/Plumbing/
Heat Vent & A.C . : Adequate
8 ..
Board of Review
Page 4
May 21 , 1981
Base Rate 25. 47
Add . 47 Cold Climate
Add 1 .00 Sprinkler
Refined Base 26. 94
26. 94
x 1 .00 Story Height
x . 916 Floor area perimeter
x 1 .02 Current Cost
x 1 .03 Local Cost
x . 93 1980 level *
x . 93 Depreciation
22. 42 Modified Cost
$22. 42 x 38, 528 sq. ft. = $863, 797 Indicated Bldg. Value
65, 280 Fence
22, 896 Paving
$951 , 973 Indicated Improvement Value
SAY $ 952,000
Add Land 422,000
.1 , 374,000 Indicated Property Value
* Marshall Cost Index
& Trend Multipliers
1
(1108. 1 + 1028 . 4)
•
•
Board of Review
Page 5
May 21 , 1981
Reviewing the three valuation conclusions, a range of value of
$1 ,334,000 to $1 ,374,000 is produced. As the reader may note
this is a very close range. An approximate 5% difference is
indicated. However, I feel most weight should be given to the
first indication listed of $1 ,364 ,000 which considers the subject
property to be a typical engineering and research center of its
class and quality.
Secondary emphasis is given to the segregated area breakdown con-
ducted by Kawasaki ' s property tax consultant. In this analysis
the consultant breaks down the areas of use in the same manner that
we currently evaluate office/warehouse areas. However, I tend to
agree with the State Equalization Department in that the highest
and best use of the property remains as an Engineering and Research
Center. The reason why the valuation falls so close to the first
valuation listed is because the consultant applied a rate for the
testing and shop area which acknowledges functional partitions,
which is a logical application.
Least weight is given the third analysis listed because of the
premise on which it is based. That is a transition in highest
and best from Engineering and Research to good class C Distribution.
Again the valuation indication falls very close to the first and
second indication lested because in the base rate allowance is
made for functional partitioning in the warehouse area.
In the final analysis I have come to the opinion that a proper
market value figure would be $1 , 364,000 as indicated in the first
listed analysis because it represents the highest and best use of
the property reflecting the desires of the typical investor in the "
engineering and research property market , further this approach
to the problem illiminates functional inadequacies and valuation
for non-taxable items which may be hidden in historic cost figures.
Recommendation:
With the foregoing thoughts in mind, I would recommend changing
the 1981 valuation from $1 , 567 ,000 tc $1 ,364,000.
LDM:plk
a.--'"`'f Fur.ahxrrib,rs nsiup Ih. MAR SHALL,VALUATION SER VICE CO(Ontur Chat My'hod
SQUARE FOOT COSTS
1. Subscriber making survey .T9(-16- LACe-- ` _ GALT /�go
&. I'lenit of CA L C t! (-1\1-10/J5 A 3 OF EC 1C(76) Dnot'e^ of survey /�/7-// '/P?
"""""'y Vwner ,Y,'JIVJ/i �/ /�t/lV�� COE"?
▪ Located at C6) k.) \(-1-t%� PA � ,r.- SJ rA 1�_C '/V -U�.0 41
SECTION I SECTION II ' SECTION III 7p50LE�� "-'
ctiLaTIPV1-1 /OA)
Occupancy O F F I(E 5 _ `abP -r S-767.-46E:1 _ V AIE &ISE {))T C1t1 RJR )G
7E�T/ VG.
i. Building class and quality . . . . . . Cif C oval. /11-)E- Cif-C Oval AVE CIf C_ ouol LoWe
Ck 0.,,,
;. Exterior wall —CP C g C
'
• No. of stories & height per story . . No / Hi
_/ Li,/ No_' HI I?'�_, No H. 13 No.— Hf
Average floor area i4 O',71 4 2 3 , S-14 -Z3�c:0 . J
3.x `6 F-CO /oo —'
'. Average perimeter
▪ Age and condition Age711 Coed.ctoj) Age Cond T P.D Age 7eCond.69:::)2 A e Cond.
/tIA!JUArt_ sECTiOIJ-- C-E - g
SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION
I II III IV '
. Base Square Foot Cost l• .5 o/ 11. 10 0. 110
SQUARE FOOT REFINEMENTS
'. Heating, cooling, ventilation 3, /L /...O / o7 .4?-
1. Elevator deduction — ___- —
Y
I. Miscellaneous p
i. Total lines 11 through 14 -3 .1.°4°/-3 .1.°4°-3 .1.°4° `2f'/ /3.4-1- �0• &;L.
(Nis/eff Agc,i COST 5 4i�'i-Erl e TO tf 44( /ZE -.(NF 1s/—/ D --4` A I EA S.
HEIGHT AND SIZE REFINEMENTS
▪ Number of stories-multiplier / 000 j, OOD /, 000 /. 000
• Height per story-multiplier (see Line 7) /i 000 /, Goo /000 /.p OO
. Floor area-perimeter multiplier (see Lines 8 and 9) 9 • �/c '/ /o77 . 96 1
Combined height and size multiplier (Lines 16 x 17 x 18) '9'2)01- ' /6 / On_ ..(16,/
FINAL CALCULATIONS sil D .BE
SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III Si-644404-1Y
). Refined square foot cost (Line 15 x Line 19) .30, y4 .,75—../1-------____ / /$', e
Current cost multiplier (•Sect. 99 p. 3) /' ` / • // _ / •
�. Local multiplier (Sect. 99 p. 5 and 6) !' 3 _ �' 3 /j'O �� d 3
t. Final sq. ft. cost (Line 20 x Line 21 x Line 22) 3/' O4' _2s 6 �9. ��� 0 p. S
I. Area (Back of this form) /� 5 o� ` _3 i_��T 3 ,200 �-3 a
, Line 23 x Line 24 3 51i 084.__.� /c24D3' f' , -• 3% �-
. Lump sums (Line 32) =—�1_"�'7Y- a3 310 3: / .21 3ger 4
Replacement Cost (Line 25 + Line 26) 3 g', 35 ' 635, 387 g91 '9 ' , "/'�, loo
p (Sect. 97) 7 re.) -----ii
_-- 77o c.15"7-0 'p 770
. Depreciation % d
. Depreciation amount (Line 27 x Line 28) �s 7L�t� �1/3")--.)
Jv 1 ��� _3° __ •�
, Depreciated Cost (Line 27- Line 29) GUNDEP 1 ) 6'O0 73 1 /O0 7Q) 1-) 3 •t SOD
4 t=31" ICAL Fuuc7-i0Nf�L (5 f COAL P Pu%E USE OF (g1-47-3 OF Sc-c77o v ?r
_ TOTAL OF ALL SECTIONS w1-fICH 15 CVEPBc2/�-�T FO,
k-3-7- Al KT A-t C #8c3 -f- LAAJI /M T MOSpc/TEA/TM C 1
11 KCHASE
(../.;' ),-----)-- o
TOTArL EST' VA t_N E S781700
See back of this form for drawings and area and insurable value calculationnss.�y
/
)RM 1003 (Colt.Cost) 9-IFF-ge& BurfutEA) 5&-c..5&-c.. , SEC !, n rdinU..S.Q, s7
5S frI/I)/Cf7eD 0f)5oLESC�A -
4,
1 . , 5cAL . 1"= 4-o/ :
S�GTI O/J UPAWN.I 1- 16- 2!
[f_. - .
-- ~^ - - ------ AFF+CE. : - • _= -
i - • -- - - - i -- - 1 __ ` i-' . 71
_ - - 34,. =r - -1-1-7-'-1-1--TES-Ti/V6 �/f/lM' 1 ' _1�.-. ,l Y f'. r ( l
- - - --,-- - ,-- ;--:--!--i---. - • i . • 'WA.NOLfSE - 4o
- • . - - -- -- .. _DDITICN 1_ _`�i
•
Iculations:
(?�F(c1= : �G., 0111 -1- 6,-.).47 x3L4 _ __ �D 8
-i,1 5[IoF : (7 g x .2$< t _ tl
W i.Et1ou5E . FO X Lio = 3 00 n
—_ 7OT4 L_ 3 i sag 11J
rp sum (Sprinklers, elevators, etc.) C P hiu Kl•- ( 3L e 4/ -f. ' f4UE . -1gfT 31 ) 7- 7
Total
Insurance Exclusions (Section 96) SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV
-~
Basement excavation
Foundation below ground r
Piping below ground
Architect's plans and specifications
Total % exclusions (Lines 33 through 36)
Replacement or depredated cost (Line 27 or 30)
Exclu4ed amount (Line 37 x Line 38) _
Insurable Value(Line 38 — Line 39)
es:
C I a SO-Copies of this form may t*purchased horn MARSHALL and SWIFT PUBLICATION COMPANY. `
I 1003 (Colt.Cast) 1617 Beverly Blvd.,P.O.Boy 26307,Los Angeles,Ca'.forma 90026 for $3.00 per pad of 50. California subscribers add saes tart.
41
CITY OF . A EE
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
♦ t +.
osuismonemmumws
MEMO
•
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: K-mart Distribution Center
DATE: May 22, 1981
Introduction:
I have been informed by Chuck Yessian that K-mart Corp .
will be hiring Peter J . Patchin and Assoc . to conduct an
appraisal on their distribution facility in Shakopee.
Background:
Because of the timing, the appraisal will not be complete
before the close of the Board of Review; however, I did
inform Mr. Yessian that the City would be willing to review
such an appraisal and examine it to determine whether or not
it is applicable to the 1981 assessment.
Summary:
Upon receipt of the appraisal , staff will present it to
Council with appropriate alternatives so that the City may
establish their position in approaching other appeal processes
open to the property owner.
LDM:plk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First venue
5 4� A Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
�s-
....3
MEMO
TO:
Board -of Review
FROM: Larry D. Martin
SUBJECT: Informational
DATE:_. May 22, 1981
Introduction:
There are two other cases to be reviewed on the 26th;
however, they have not been finalized for this packet.
Background:
They are :
1 . Lakeshore lots on O 'Lowd Lake (R.L.S . #47)
A. It appears that they have been assessed
out of line with other unimproved lakeshore lots.
B. It also appears that the property is eligible
for an agricultural classification.
2. Viking Steel Products
A. I do not believe there is a problem with the
market value placed on this property; however,
it was not uniform with a direct competing
industry outside Shakopee. I have discussed
this matter with the jurisdictions Assessor
and they have raised the property value to
a proper level .
Summary:
A full report on these properties will be prepared before
the meeting Tuesday, May 26, 1981
LDM:plk
�Vf ref CITY OF SHAKOPEE
. ' ..i v 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Al
VAY
MEMO � D
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry L. Martin. City Assessor
SUBJECT: •
DATE: May 22 , 1981
Attached you will find a list of Office/Warehouse type
properties located in Shakopee and a list from the Savage,
Prior Lake, Chaska, Jordan, Jackson Township area.
Those most comparable as far as immediate environment and
structure type are those located in Chaska.
I have asked the County to review them so they might answer
any questions cr address any concerns regarding this matter.
LDM:plk
H `3"' C) 'TJ v 15 'v Cn in 11 t r'] < 'v < Cl)
a '-5 0 'i '1 0 1 C) C) •
1 0 ) CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 'b Q H 0 H �' x
o CO 3 OR H OR ct ct QR • 0 H QR H tri
• H 0 • H. < 05 CD • CD 0
< HA 05 < 0 < H N •
Di 0 ct Di ct � 0) 0) < CD [rill 5 k.
< cC zy
H., LI] "L1 H
H H H H 0. 0. H 05 0) 0) H 0
CD 05 CD CD
(< O' '<; `C CD C) CD < CD
'U 0 0
CO CO I CD 0 0
H. 3 CO CO CA c1. a) CD
a)
CO CD Cl) CO U) •
O CD • 1
O `-i HA
H) < 05
ct
N CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO CO N.) N.) CO N N.) CO
�1 �1 J J J J J J J J J J J J J
I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 H
CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Cr CIl U1 CO 0) 0) 0 CO CO 'N7 �7 U1 OD CT1 t7
CA) H 01 A H J H C) CO H 0 0 A H A
I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1k
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 0 0 0 H 0 H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H U1 0) 0) H H CO CO H CO CO H A CT 01
1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I
O 0 0 0 0 O • O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-Eft
H H H H
A CA) 0) CO CO OO CO OO CO CA) 01 Cl) CO CO Cl) < t'
0) CO -P 0) CO CO CO 0 0) CO �l 0) CO N.) CO
CO 0 0 0 0) H 0) 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 1Z7
A 0 0 CO 0 0 0) A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tri
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
CO N.) A 0 CO U1 N U1 0) N -S1 -1 A H -1 C)
H A 0 CO 0 0) 0 0 CA) 0 0 0 0) CO 0) CO
A A 0 A H 0 H A H 0 OD -1 U1 CO U1 Cn
ff}
H CO H H
O CO H C) U1 CO W N CO CO GJ CO U1 CO (a) > t'
01 0 N N H U1 A -5 01 H A H co -t CO (7J
H H CO - 0) H (J1 U1 CO 0 0) 0) CO -- CO C 0
LTJ •
O O 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 C 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H H U] ed
H 0 CO CO U1 CO 00 0) N N.) N A CO CO ,0 •
A H CO CO CO cn 0 0 A H 01 01 0) CO 0 • 1:7
'TJ 0
�1 0) CO 0) 0 G) 0) 0 CO 0 0 0 CO A 0 H
co UJ U1 co co Cr CO 0 0 0 (.51 0 01 0 0
0) 0 0) 0 N 0) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
< cn td
CO H H H H H H H H H H H H H H l ,O N
co -.1 co co -7 -1 0) 01 A A CO N N CO H t-' • d
171
CD CO CO CO J H 0) CO 0) - 00 0) (11 CO 0) t'J H •
O CO H H CO CO J (a) CJ 0) H U1 CO CO 0
- if1 <1cnH
Iv CO H H H H H H H H H H H H H ;? -C) 0
- ) 0 (0 CO CO 0) CO 0) 0) 0) 0) A A CO CO C • H
• X '=i
H 0) CO 01 CO CO CO CO �1 N 0 CO 01 CO CO t'1 H t-'
H A 0 CO A 0 CO U1 CO CO CO CO 0 H CO
H H 0
A N CO H 0) J A v A CO A H 'TJ Cn
h7 0
A co a) 00 0 0) U1 CO 0 0 N CJ1 1 Co H • '
W CO 0 0 0 01 CO 0 0 N CO CO �1 1 0 0 '11
0) 0 0 0 0 0) -P 0 0 0) 0 CO A 0 tri 1-R
CO
N H H til
0) H N N CO 0 CO CO CO CO H CO CO N H
A C 0 0 -. 0 CO 0 CO 0 0 0 4-)'
CO
O CO 0 H
H 0 C) C) CD C) C) C) H C) 0 CD 0 C) C) 0
H. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 05 05 05 O 05 05 05 H 7 05 05 05 05 05 Z.
ct C) • C) C) C) ct- C) C) O O C) C) U)
C tC t:0 • CO H
CO H H bi H td tO 171 '0 CO 'JJ OD Cb CO CO CO
H x" H H H H H H H H H C)
x T x x x x x CD
CO '� H
'I H
Z4 CD CD CD CD 0
ct (-t ct ct X
H A) W P Iv
0 H H H H
CO
v
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C~ LTJ
CO CD \ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO H
-1 0) -1 0) -.1 -.1 �1 -1 �1 CO 00 J 0) CO 0) t-' :d
(Al 0 0) U1 CO CO CO A CO 0 0 00 CO 0 CO H
b a 1.11 X cn a a a r C b 0 C a 0 to 3G
H o H H• H• 'Ci 0 0 0 A) • '1 's Iv I) 0 'i > o
ct W ,1 H H H O CA H. CD H• Cr (D O
C) ct 0 0 n H• C o • o "i C) ct (D tzi
:' H. (D (D 0 0 `'a 9 9 a c< o H• '-'0
ct ct DQ CJ• Cr Cr tri H ) > .
(D 0 0 H• H• H7>
a w Iv I) .0 ) ) H ) cD H CO
ct ct0 I) I) '1 C) C) C) 'CS 0) CCD a p r
0 til
H r t 0 (D H) 0 '-0 0 to
to P) ) 'i 1-1 n A) 1 r
0 Crct ct ci- ct ci 0 PO C7
a • Cn ct CSD ' 0 0 a
ii X Y a tEl 'i H Imo. C t'
Iv a a) C) C) H.
An C cD cr-
H Cn CD '71
F
0 ct0
cn cn
0
O N Co C..) (A) (A) Cl) (A) Cl) 0 N C.) CJ N C.) CA) N '0 Cl)
<
a) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N H H 0) a) 0) 0)
I I v 0) a) a) a) 0) a) I I I I I I I I H
co 0 A co co co co co co co CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 0
IH N H 0 0 0 H C H C7 tri
01 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0) H H (0 0) H 0
I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I Ik
O 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Ai
A H H 0) 0 �1 N C H N 0 H H H -1 N 0
O --1 R° H .A 0) N U1 co --1 Co H
I I A• I I I I I I I I 0
O 0
0 H 0 H 0 0 0 0
r
err 7>
H H H G r
01 co H CJ a) (A) co 01 0 N C.) C N H CO Cl) -1 > > Cil
A 01 G.) CO U1 H -1 CO 1 CO A 0 0 co v N 0 r z
CI
O 0 H (D A CO H A 0 N Co 0 0 (1 CO 0 0 tri n
0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 x
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 >
C/)
H 0) H 7> 7>
A OD 0) N A H N A 0) A Cl) C1 H H A CJ A CC)
H Ul U1 A CEJ CO H H -.3 CO CO 0 Cl) CD �1 N H to
0) Cl) N Cn A A CO CD H 01 0 CD U1 0) 0 CJ C/) 0
C7
H H H N H Z
N C1 0 C1 -3 (11 A N -1 H H H N CO H N > r
A 01 0 CO 01 A N CO A 0) A H -.l H -.l CO CO r C7
CO 0 A CA A A 0 CO H 0 Cl) H U1 0) CO Co Co C G)
tri . O
A 0) v c0 co co A 0) CO 0 OD A A 0) H H 0
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn CD 0) 0 C/3 I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 U, H 0 0
H
Cs) H CA bo H
ch 01 W CJ W N co Cl) H H H N 0 H CO -0 r 0
OO J CD 0 CO 0 0) 0 CO 01 Cl) N CO N -1 O) 0) • to
x, CD
0) A N 0 CO 0 0 0 C11 CD H CO (II CO • U1 0 H • U]
ao 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0) N 0 cn H (D N) 0 x
0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 co A Co O H
U1 .O
CCn bi
N) N H H H H H H H H 7>-0 r
CO C.) 07 co co co a) a) N 0 co co co CO -3 a) a) r • C
C '-r]
-1 0 co co co H H H 0) 0 A -.1 co 01 N CD 0) tri H •
A 0 co 0 0 0) -.1 -.3 N N co 0 H 0 co 01 a) •
GJ N N) N N H H H H H H H H H C 0 H
r
A W H 0 0 CD -.1 0) A H H H 0 0 OO -1 -1 t •
O
C'ri y
CO U1 0 C0 01 N 0) CO U1 0) J 0 U1 CD 0 CD 0 tri 1-3 r
-.3 co H 0 A N 0 H H 0 00 01 (3) ()•I N 0) CJ
H N OCA
H -.3 --.3 H (D H H H H H CD (0 '=i.O
NO V •. V VP .. 'T1 .
0 0 N) N 0 Co 0 C co N H Co cn H '=i
0 cn 0 0 0 0 01 0 0) CO cn v v C) H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 N -1 a) tri•
H H H x
N N) N) N H N H tri
\ H \ \ 0) N O7 H
•J - N N - - - 0
0 H to 1
H
0 CD C H C) 0 H H H to C) C a C) H 0 C C)
o O (D H. 0 0 H• H• H• CD 0 0 0 0 H• 0 0 0
0 0 C) H O 0 H H H Cf 0 O 0 0 H Z C Z
0 0 • ct C) C) ct ct ct A) C) C) C) 0 ct C) 0 CA
O7 al 'CI to OD '0 'Ci 'd H CO tO CO OD 'CD Cd CD Cd
H H H H H H H H H H C
0 cn x cn cn Cl) x• Tr• ✓r x'• x a
• C) \ 0 C) 0 H
to tO 0 CA H 0 0 0 H
'I H ''i '0 H.
�v x' a) • H CCD CD CD Z
a '11 a a a
C)
CO •
CO J H H H H H H H J -1 �1 -.1 Iii ,-C
co co co co co co co co CD -1 01 C tri
-1 �1 �1 •\1 -Q �1 -.l �l — — — H
�1 0) 0) CO H O) N N N J -3 J CO r %>y
0 CO CO CP 0 H
a
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Nt'I'.:r"'' , •
129 East Firsi venue, Shakopee,ti. A Minnesota 5 379
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry D. Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: VIKING STEEL PRODUCTS , INC . 427-906-051 & 054-0
DATE: May 26, 1981
INTRODUCTION:
Property owner contends that his property has been over
assessed in comparison to a directly competing industry.
BACKGROUND:
1
The property that the Viking Steel representative is comparing
his operation to is Northern Culvert , which is located in
Jackson Township .
I have discussed the matter with the Jackson Township Assessor,
George Johnson, and Bob Schmitt, Deputy County Assessor.
After reviewing the assessment on Northern Culvert, they
tended to agree that the property value was low in comparison
tc other industrial properties in Shakopee and Jackson Township.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schmitt then met with Northern Culvert to ,
explain the situation and discuss a proper valuation for the
1981 assessment.
After review, it was their decision to raise the valuation
frcm $329 , 550 to $417 ,900 on the Northern Culvert property
to bring them in line with other industrial properties in the
County.
On Friday, May 22nd I met with Ray Peterson from Viking Steel
to discuss this increase in valuation. It was his opinion that
the Viking Steel and the Northern Culvert assessment still
lacked uniformity.
I then explained that for a formal review of both properties
he will have be bring his appeal before the County Board of
Review because the Northern Culvert property lies outside of
Shakopee ' s jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION:
No change be made _
4.00 `P4 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
!, "1 F, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO* Board of Review
FROM: Larry D . Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: LOTS IN R.L.S . #47
DATE: May 26. 1981
INTRODUCTION:
Property owner has requested the valuation of these
properties be reviewed.
BACKGROUND :
For the 1980 & 1981 assessment, the properties in question
were valued at $200 per front foot of lakeshore which averaged
out to be $20,000 per lot; however, at that time no allowance
was made for the lack of road improvements. A proper valuation
for each lot would read as follows:
Tract 0 front ft. lake 87 .65 @ $200 = $17, 530
front ft. road 50.00 @ 40 = 2,000
Indicated Value $15, 530
Tract P front ft . lake 113 . 6 @ $200 = $22, 720
front ft. road 100.00 @ 40 = 4,000
Indicated Value = $18, 720
Tract Q front ft. lake 154.08 @ 200 = $30, 816
front ft. road 150.00 @ 40 = 6,000
Indicated Value = $24, 816
Tract R front ft . lake 120.00 @ 200 = $24,000
front ft. road 120.00 @ 40 = 4, 800
Indicated Value = $19, 200
Tract S frcnt ft. lake 81 .00 @ 200 = $16, 200
front ft. road 135 .00 @ 40 = 5, 400
Indicated Value = $10, 800
Tract T front ft. lake 75 .00 @ 200 = $15 ,000
front ft . road 140.00 @ 40 = 5, 600
Indicated Value = $ 9,400
Tract U front ft. lake 75 .00 @ 200 = $15,000
front ft . road 145 .00 @ 40 = 5, 800
Indicated Value = $ 9, 200
Board of Review 3
Page 2 //
May 26, 1981
Tract V front ft. lake 60.00 @ 200 = $12,000
front ft. road 148.00 @ 40 = 5, 920
Indicated Value $ 6,080
Tract W front ft. lake 117.41 @ 200 = $23, 482
front ft. road 107. 56 @ 40 = 4, 302
Indicated Value $19, 180
Tract X front ft . lake 126. 29 @ 200 = $25 , 248
front ft. road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4,040
Indicated Value $21 , 208
Tract Y front ft . lake 126.00 @ 200 = $25, 200
front ft. road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4,040
Indicated Value $21 , 160
Tract Z front ft . lake 122. 96 @ 20C = $24, 592
front ft. road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4,040
Indicated Value $20, 552
Tract AA front ft. lake 117 .00 @ 200 = $23,400
front ft. road 101 .00 @ 4C = 4, 040
Indicated Value $19,360
Tract BB front ft . lake 117.00 @ 200 = $23, 400
front ft. road 101 .00 @ 40 = 4,040
Indicated Value $19,360
In addition to the abcve adjustment , the City Assessor has
learned that because the properties are actively being used
for the production of agricultural products they are eligible
for a non-homestead agricultural classification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adjust the lot values as listed and change classification from
vacant land to non-homestead agricultural .
�.,
�. '� CITY OF SHAKOPEE
° arc C^"�. ' 4 •
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry D. Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: Valley Warehouse . Inc . , #27-054-004 & 005-0
DATE: May 26, 19 81
INTRODUCTION:
Property owner contends that he is being taxed for
excess acreage.
BACKGROUND:
The properties involved are the North % and the South 1/2
of Tract I , R.L.S . #66. We currently have all of Tract I
containing 12.3 acres. The County Surveyor reports that
Tract I contains 9 . 62 acres.
Also the South property is reported not to have rail access.
RECOMMENDATION:
Order City Assessor to correct the 1981 assessment of the
above mentioned parcels to reflect the actual acreage and
actual railway access.
LDM :plk
es6 ylt.I,�,� CITY OF SHAKOPEE
,, ../, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
-v o
dt
Ti-fir3 k
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM• Larry D. Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: Uniform Application of Cost Rates
DATE: May 26. 1981
Introduction:
I have been requested to address the degree of uniformity
applicable to the valuation of industrial buildings in
Shakopee.
Background:
For the most part the buildings within the Industrial Park
have been valued by breaking down the areas of use ( i .e.
office, warehouse) , and applying appropriate rates to those
areas.
There are properties however that have been evaluated
differently; using unit in place, segregated building cost
breakdowns and actual construction costs updated.
Recommendation:
For the sake of consistency, it would be adviseable to
review all of the industrial parcels for the 1982 assessment
applying a standardized cost approach such as was done for the
spec office/warehouse buildings for the 1981 assessment.
LDM:plk
i
1
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier Twig!
City Engineer vo `
RE: Minnesota Valley Mall Tra fic Circulation Study
DATE: May 20, 1981
Introduction:
In a meeting April 7, 1981 City Council of the City of Shakopee accepted
a proposal from Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW)
for a traffic study in the vicinity of Minnesota Valley Mall.
Background:
A traffic study was ordered in this area in order to determine the most
acceptable and efficient street configuration.
Attached are copies of the report prepared by BRW recommending the street
configuration that should be utilized for the development of the balance
of land south of 12th Avenue and south of Valley Mall Subdivision.
Mr. David Warner, an Engineering with BRW, will be present at the meeting
May 26th to present the report and answer any questions.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION STUDY
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
- MAY 18, 1981
e f
MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION STUDY
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF 9-1AKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Prepared by :
BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. (BRW)
2829 University Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
May 18, 1981
Contents Page
I . SUMMARY 1
I I . INTRODUCTION 3
III . IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 5
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 7
V . DEFINITION AND EVALUAT ION OF ALTERNAT I VES 9
VI . RECOMMENDATION 27
I . SUMMARY
An analysis conducted for the City of Shakopee and documented in this
report identified eight alternative means of providing access to the
P,,
Minnesota Valley Mall shopping center and the developing property around
the center.
The analysis was performed in four steps:
1 ) Major issues were identified through discussions with interested
parties.
2) Alternatives were developed .
3) Alternatives were evaluated relative to the degree to which each
addressed identified key issues.
4 ) A recommendation was made to implement Alternative 6 as best
addressing the key issues.
The recommended alternative, Alternative 6 (see Figure 6) , calls for the
extension of 13th Avenue (as a designated collector street) to the west and
northwest to a new south entrance to Valley Mall located at the front face
of the K-Mart Store. 12th Avenue would end in a cul-de-sac, without access
to Valley Mall . The major features of this recommended alternative include:
o Focuses shopping center traffic on 13th Avenue.
o Removes through traffic from the loading/unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
o Uses roads as buffers between incompatible uses.
o Allows access to utilities in place along the back property line of
the shopping center.
The implementation of the recommended solution does not require the exten-
-
sion of Polk Street (CSAH 69) either to the north or to the south of the
existing construction .
Since successful implementation of the recommended solution depends on the
extension of 13th Avenue to the East, and since it may be some time before
that extension is accomplished , an interim solution is also proposed
( Figure 9) . The interim solution is easily adaptable to the ultimate solu-
tion at the time 13th Avenue is constructed. The interim solution includes
a temporary access to the shopping center from 12th Avenue which is physi-
cally separated from the activities around the K-Mart Store. The interim
solution eliminates that conflict at K-Mart, but does not divert shopping
center traffic from 12th Avenue.
1
17
I I . INTRODUCTION
Several questions are being considered by the City of Shakopee with regard
^. to traffic planning and development planning for the area around the
Minnesota Valley Mall Shopping Center at the west end of Shakopee near TH
169. There are five key concerns to be considered :
1 . Access to Minnesota Valley Mall - Do the existing streets provide
for safe and efficient vehicle movement to and from the center?
2. Entrance Capacity - Are the three existing entrances required to
serve the level of traffic expected at the center?
3. Through Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods - Are vehicles using
residential streets to reach the shopping center?
4. Coordination with Residential Development - Can a solution to Valley
Mall circulation questions also provide an opportunity for
surrounding residential property to be developed in better accord
with City ordinances?
5. Compatibility with Roadway Improvement Plans - A solution developed
to address the current roadway system configuration should be
compatible, as far as possible, with planned roadway improvements
( particularly the Shakopee By-Pass) .
The City of Shakopee retained BRW, Inc. to examine these questions and to
identify a plan which best meets the needs of the City of Shakopee by pro-
viding good traffic circulation and access to the Minnesota Valley Mall ,
focusing traffic on collector and arterial streets, and allowing the deve-
lopment of a satisfactory design solution for the land adjacent to the
Minnesota Valley Mall .
In order to identify the best plan, a four-step analysis was developed and
carried out by BRW, Inc. The steps are:
1 . Identification of Issues
2 . Development of Alternatives
3. Evaluation of Alternatives
4 . Recommendation
The purpose of this report is to document the process used in the analysis,
and to recommend to the City of Shakopee a plan for resolving the problems.
3
4/
III . IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
The first step in the analysis was to identify the key issues in order to
develop solutions which respond to those issues. Data was collected from
City staff, from present property owners and from developers that
described existing development and proposed development at the site. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) provided data concerning
existing and projected traffic volumes, and the layout of the proposed
"Shakopee Bypass" and TH 169 relocation.
In meetings and/or telephone conversations with interested parties,
observations, opinions and concerns related to traffic flow and development
around Valley Mall were solicited and received.
The data collection resulted in a listing of key study issues. After
review with City Staff, the list of issues became the basis for the deve-
lopment of alternatives, and for evaluation of those alternatives. The
'-' issues, which are arranged according to the group most interested in them,
are listed here:
Key Issues
• The City of Shakopee
1 . Safe and efficient traffic flow on nearby roads
2. Safe and efficient traffic flow at Valley Mall entrances
3. Compatibility with planned roadway improvements
4. Development of vacant land in accord with City ordinances and in
a manner compatible with the best interests of the City as a
whole
• Residents of Neighborhoods Adjacent to Valley Mall
5. Minimization of traffic volumes on residential streets
6. Convenient access to nearby commercial areas
• Owners, Operators and Tenants of Valley Mall
7. Convenient and identifiable access from all directions to Valley
Mall
• Owner and Developer of Vacant Property Adjacent to Valley Mall
_ 8. Efficient utilization of available land for development
9. Minimization of investment in roadways and utilities
Chapter IV describes how these issues were used to develop alternatives.
In Chapter V, the issues are used as evaluation criteria against which each
alternative is measured.
5
71
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Each of the nine issues suggests a particular approach to resolving the
situation. Some of the issues are related to constraints which the pro-
posed solutions must work within. The constraints include:
• Planned Roadway Improvements
The proposed TH 101 relocation along the south side of Shakopee has pro-
ceeded to the point that Mn/DOT has received "Official Map" approval by
affected communities. Included in that project is the rediignment
Scott County Road 69 to the east into the Polk Street corridor,
extending Polk Street along the east side of the Minnesota Valley Mall
to an intersection with 10th Avenue. Any roadway or other development
in this area must accomodate these proposed roadways.
• Shakopee Comprehensive Plan/Transportation Plan
The City's Comprehensive Plan, of which the Transportation Plan is a
part, is the product of consideration of the community's resources and
long range needs. As such, the Plan should provide direction and
guidance in the development of specific plans.
The Townsite 1990 Land Use Plani/ recommends commercial development
along TH 169, and multi-family residential development adjacent to the
commercial development, west of Tyler Street. Alternatives developed
within this analysis should support this adopted land use plan .
The Proposed Transportation Plan/ describes the system of major road-
ways needed by the City to serve future traffic demand. The relocation
of TH 101 and the relocation of Scott County Road 69 are a part of the
-- Transportation Plan. To carry locally oriented east-west traffic in the
vicinity of the Minnesota Valley Mall , the Plan proposes the use of 10th
Avenue (classified as a minor arterial ) and 13th Avenue (classified as a
collector) .
• Shakopee Zoning Ordinance
The City's Zoning Ordinance, which is intended to set standards for
development in the City to the City's best interest, should also be con-
sidered where applicable.
The remaining issues provide guidance where alternatives are available.
The development of alternatives also depended on the five concerns stated in
the introduction. Outlined below are answers to each of the questions.
1 . Do the existing streets provide for safe and efficient vehicle move-
ment to and from the site?
1/ Shakopee Comprehensive Plan, Map 10.
2/ Shakopee Comprehensive Plan, Map 19.
7
Yes. The capacity of the existing street system and the proposed
street system is more than adequate for the level of traffic demand _
expected, even if the Minnesota Valley Mall is fully leased . The
geometrics of the external street system do not present any hazardous
situations.
2. Are the three existing entrances required to serve the level of traf-
fic expected at the center?
If the center was 100 percent leased, it would generate about 900 one-
way trips during the afternoon peak hour. Counts indicate that
currently, about 570 trips enter or leave the center during the after-
noon peak hour. At the most, two well-designed entrances are needed
to serve the center. The need for two entrances is based more on
accessibility than on capacity needs.
The existing east entrance (12th Avenue) constitutes a hazardous
situation both for drivers of vehicles using it, and for customers and
employees of K-Mart. The mix of through traffic with loading and --
unloading of vehicles, and with pedestrians shopping in the K-Mart
garden department, should be eliminated.
3. Are vehicles using residential streets to reach the shopping center?
Due to the location of the east entrance on 12th Avenue, it is reaso-
nable to assume that some trips to the center use 12th Avenue.
Indications are that the number is relatively small . A reorientation
of these trips to 13th Avenue, which is designated as a collector
street, is desirable and can be accomplished by relocating the east —
entrance to a location served by 13th Avenue.
4. Can a solution to Valley Mall circulation questions also provide an —
opportunity for surrounding residential property to be developed in
better accord with City ordinances?
Each proposed solution will attempt to accomodate minimum lot sizes,
maximum cul-de-sac lengths and other City requirements.
5. A solution developed to address the current roadway system con- —
figuration should be compatible, as far as possible, with planned
roadway improvements.
Each solution will be totally compatible with both existing and pro-
posed
roadway systems, using either staging or simple modification , or
with no change.
Each of the eight alternatives developed in this analysis responds as far
as possible to both the constraining issues and the guiding issues. A
description of the features of each of the alternatives, along with its —
evaluation , is contained in Chapter V.
8
NMI
V . DEFINITION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of alternatives is carried out in two steps. In the first
step, the characteristics of each alternative are presented. In the second
step, an evaluation matrix is set up in which alternative solutions are
assessed relative to the extent to which each is able to resolve the iden-
tified issues. On the following pages each alternative is described and
its major advantages and disadvantages are listed.
9
> ,, ti
,
XI/ v . , // • ,
/•• / ex 1 / / /./ ; ,..-•• -
•
_______--
#1i'i•C' '70 ' -----.. -----/-77.'... .-' /-----"--7-------,-i/ , \
V y
Gt4i : • .....--i
r'71 • •
,/. ..,,,o- • ,, 475/,
—
/ / ,r, ,// / , ‘, s'>,..\•, i I-2H1-4 1-11
/ , / i .• v.,'
_
/ , • / , / , , \,,,,,,,„,:'..,-s.- . .., j--4-_,...4.4 1... .t_ti
,• . , , 1 . ,...„,..„..,_, , „oar,. , . • . , . , . , -,
,..._, ,....„..._,,...L.... ,
„
/..so. , / t,.,,,.... .....„ 1, , ,_ ? . _____ ,__i
(). .....„ 2..„ -7—, , - . .
, ;
,
---- -L--- -. / i I----7--i 1--.---1 .___ _,-..,, :, ,::, /^...,,, / .
_______ ..----- / i. i____.4._ L.„./., v,„:
!---:—..!
/ / ..
-
.• / -2"--4•1
I A / / - ' t 1— .2p.„ i___ —i 1-,A.1
i /
. ' i L ! ___I • i '1
t
' z • m 1-,, -,, ,..7--,:-1 1- ----7.1
. ,>. ',...........i ,Atft 40,...._ t.....1........;...........I i........... .A .....0
I /Z
‘ ;C.c+.
H.. ,, . , I i ,r."7.777; if '.......',....7....1.... 1 1 ,... i f,...
s.‘ / / . 2 I ' I •
r ! i ----1 1-----, 1_...__..
. . 1 --1
1 ,
/ / MINNESOTA -
: . i____i i ,____ __.......
/ i VALLEY . .
•
/ / ,•
/ / .'
/ / MALL ;; i
/ i • . .
1 2 MEP
: ... 14
j
/ / ' / 2 • • rt 1
1-...• . i--- - 1----. 1
1 ___:•,
I / / ,., ., /
. I
'--------1 I--4- . ,,......... L_.
i
/
/ ' 1-7
I r- , --1 ------, 1
:o i S j s ,--- , . 1
/ , ,....< .
. . ._...j ___ __, ,_••••....„ 1.•__. — r , ....
/ , / . • • : • : 1
/
,. / / • -..„.›,,... , /01111111111111111111
/ •
/ • / / .a.,,,,, v 4:1);,---! ,
7 46.4./ '..—. —771
. i2fh ,i•SkA
/ / i___, , .: 5
/ / 15 W . , _1. .,i .4..........4
/ / , ' . 1 . .---,....i.......i. \ ).-."-j
I
\ '• I ‘ b,
.
1 \ / / > . _.
..... , .. • ,
1 • , . •.
----1
• •s• i _•••_---j h---,------I
\ .
.-4..._ 1---..., 1 i 4 , 4;;1"/,‘ ;%•• .\
,-1:11 -±1:H 1H.. .--- i 7 : /-:'./: ,.- -1
-,--1 ___
, ,. „......, ,._..._,--, --..-___ _ 4, --7-4
L
.
. .._ _.. .
. .
.
, :_.., .... , -i
.
/ . • ,'
/ , •
,/ z4 n. .-_.-.:- -----2;+ - -'" I-• ;- :.„-_,.
/ / PROPOSED . ,3,7* .' VE' I I
• PROPOSED
. • eamo
A i TH 101 R.O.W. 5 ' --
. '----'- '' 1 : `1 'COLLECTOR_.
, 1
7- 71-,-- L
I • ba __
J s_ 7.__••- -1---J .0, .
, (-7—7----7-7 ,----1-----7-7 •
1 ,... 0
ai
14)
1 ! ' ! I 1Z OE = !
0 < L
i cc (13
.. 11 Q •.
0 I • ,
FIGURE 1 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS-
ALTERNATIVE 1 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND -
immull PROPOSED ROADWAYI +1--'71g1Z/V
rgli.r.17 I
4'
MALL. ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' 800'
2 r
Alternative 1
Description
Alternative 1 represents the currently proposed development. 12th Avenue
would be extended to the west and southwest in a long cul-de-sac serving
residential development. The triangular commercial area would be accessed
' through the shopping center. The east entrance to the shopping center would
be moved to the southeast corner of the site.
Advantages
• Road serves as buffer between the residential development and the
shopping center.
• Good access to utilities in place along 12th Avenue, extended .
Disadvantages
• Mix of through traffic with loading and unloading vehicles at southwest
-- and southeast sides of K-Mart Store is hazardous.
• Access to residential development is via long cul-de-sac.
• Trips from south and east to the east entrance of the shopping center
will use 12th Avenue rather than 13th Avenue.
11
>7 Z1E.,- ,,7, /.7 // / ... . . g„..,
I /,/ 1 /,----1 ,
/ .5
‘,...
.•
. ,./ 7 r / // • __,......ar'll 1
0 \Co // I :s Lt 1-11-171
, I.,
/ . 4
.. i F._2. • , 1, k.,
/
, ....._, i —,,....._..., ,
...- / //.
-4' / / ,iOth i I ',01E,•1 I • : , 1 ', I
.., ./'
-••• 30()
• ,
.„-- ,--
......
/ : I I l'''..".1. ....-1 r--""------.' '-• // 's
/ / •(.........„...„.0'.
-- -'' '--
-
;....---,
! co) I YA i tn4 ' • I---j r-II -----1
I /1 ; / /
•
/ : ! / / .1 — -1 t.---'.
/ N,i / / /
I 1......._;.----
1 1 ' 1 }- H----j
I i ..._;,--{ [ ! .1 1 L
/
/ i / ,..." -
I A 1 6 , I • 1 3' 1 .,./Ati),‘ , , ,.,40177.1 ra.;_„..1,-.1 i_S-L,-;-.1
z
/<.
(•., N. •(• +.
1.--Thl:
1-1 f,,, 4•
. ' • — t `"---7-7.1 r7-7-1 H
1-1 t-lt---1 ---i
,----11-d-..
.
. . ,
/ / MINNESOTA ! , . ;---i ; 1 .
/ / VALLEY
/ / .. 1 1Htil ! 1 HH
, / MALL i .2 I 4---
. . ; 4
1--- : - ----1-•75-% ' 6
// / 2 i 51 allUri. I___. 1 ''• L. , cs; r---4-- 1---7-1.
/ , li . 1 I *1 ! 1
• — •
.. 1-- i
s., , : ,
/ . , , :,,
, . r 1 , ,
73 ib• ' /KNes'... , g71. 1-2---L2-1.--1 ZI-4-21-1 +. ---12"'"
____,........_4: i • I • i .
/ / i " •• ,
.............—..........------ /./ / i
la I LliLL.,111a 1 1 i L
4.,„ ... / ,/ • //
`.1.k. / / *saismosai% . 1...
/ • N' / ! k.../
/ -.., / / . .1-47771,
.• i2rh ,4Vi
, s• ,, , .,._ : ; l,s, s i
1
/ \,....„,„..
K. "" ‘ ; / tri''' : ___
; ". . / / k \ ••••
• . 777 ---I
1 1-•--1. I IT 1 A 1 2 .., 7,‘, .
IL
4.. .,
- , , .--- , L___,,,,,_, ,, ,
,.. „ •
i , . . , ----T 1----,..--i . --'TO,...,,,,./ ''''',,,
/ , • ..-...‘ I • ! '
N j • • `--.,.
•
•
L.
a
ea
• ,'
//,,/ • st .
• , —, ------/ H----- ' • . • i I
, •
PROPOSED
PROPOSED • •
.. , [KE:. 1 .„Ii ,4 1.---- —
-t,stiligulle i
1. TH 101 R.O.W. 1 :•'---j," ' j 77./ COLLECTOR
.. , _._.____._
I \
L.
,____,...._, ,
• .
, , , , jr"--T---T---77 , •
• i . 1 it , , , , It
\.. ,A
1 i 1 1 ! I '
it
SOiNO i Sh i I : tilni 0
I 21 i P A R
I M 0 134
I 1 I 1 I i 1 il4" a. =
0 a
1 Ci. Q .•
1 ! 1
I ---%-----„.....
FIGURE 2 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS-
ALTERNATIVE 2 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
_.
LEGEND
1111111111111 PROPOSED ROADWAY 7.11=1 1 1 "1:11- IIIMT
MALL ENTRANCE • 0 200' 400' 800' 6,-A....1-1
Alternative 2
Description
Alternative 2 calls for the construction of a loop roadway connecting 12th
Avenue and 13th Avenue and providing access to residential development.
The triangular commercial area would be accessed through the shopping
center. The east entrance to the shopping center would be moved to the
southeast corner of the site.
Advantages
• Trips to the shopping center from the south will probably use 13th
Avenue.
• Road serves as buffer between the residential development and the
shopping mall .
• Good access to utilities in place along 12th Avenue, extended.
Disadvantages
• Trips from the north to the east entrance will use 12th Avenue rather
than 13th Avenue.
• Mix of through traffic with loading and unloading vehicles at southwest
and southeast corners of K-Mart Store is hazardous.
13
../ /Ott / , • •• ,./ ; •••• ,
...a
71.r /,' "/ .....•
/ ...... ;
,
• //e.5
0: ,e. it
-------1-• iiltk) 7 / ;
, 14
/ ,
/./ . •
...1. •s„. \ ,.„60
''-----'
...
e.„....,„1,---:
60 : . 3
/
o- 1 „ - -i H--ii-- 1
„ / 1
.60
/ -IV/ /\\b/ • !---4 ---4•-••-ll —
• , / , /
/ /
.., / / i
.r.....,,,-..e........‘.
/
.1 7 / /// I tt 1
/ ,.•
..// / / t /0//t I I '.43ir.%I . . . H • '
,• / / t...-.....'-___,
...,0• ' // * IL
•
, . c 710 1___:_i 1 , ,4___• I , i . ; /
r• ...
...-
, / / / •••••. L-__,. -/. _____ ______- ---- -- 1---- -4 ' ---i'
. --
. ,
, , ,,, ,, ,, L...___.4, :3 4
• / / \; ,
4 /
i.-2- : • . . ,
. : :
I / I -1--J, .
/ / '''' •
1 ;
• t
I /
I .1
i t. s ! 11 : •-i r___zieI _....,—,7
..., ,, i . .,... 1.2...,...............: ._......_..,
i /, . *
I ',..‘‘ •C **
/ "(• ,r----,,
'' Li
17-77 1 ,17-71: 1 AM____, ,............I. • I ' ' I __17;:::'
'I' : I _,,_ [-- I
/
/ MINNESOTA I :
/ ; I I i — ' .I.- [.......
! : j • I
•
/ i VALLEY Ot
/ / i .
MALL MIA I:2:1 .
I / / / ../' / 4
, ,4-.. . 3 oi - 3 1 a 6
i i i 1 k i
1 / le / 41 i 1 H-•,...!..
/ .•
•o •
i r 1----
c., ,9„.• ,. ... , ,
1 ,
1 , ,,,r. . „ -•••••‹ .
I 1--;. . H.1
cift y • 1 ., , I . • i [ _
,
, . 1--4--1 i :3 • 4 $ i 3
' /*/ • • /
''...Nsi..s. , /4111111111M i ' 1 1 -1— :-1 I ' 3 I I , I ' 1 1 ,. : . row
A„,/ ,0.,---,...... . ....._,.. ,
/ / N\.. \ "7:1‘ 74// ' . I '7 I I i • ' J •
1/N. . / . 0
<40/ • 4 • 4i • ,. , , i • : 5 5'4r --c -
)
'b /2fh AI i i
N‘ / / N . 1, i--7-7-7-1 ...,---k __
i r"---. • . .,
...; , , ... --4
. .., „ Iii
is •
•Ia
-• — -----:_.1
i, I-
N >
N.. • / a
• .0
' i
el •
, .. •
, , ,. • _4,4 1 7_1
i /// r / N / • Iti 40
1-----1-...-21 1---:----I --" . - -c< ''',
,
L
I---•-- "— ,`'<!- / ' •
• /
r"-----. 1 i
'----i - — ....4 1.• --, — 1-- -- \,..A.-.::----, 1-71
/,•,/ / / • .
/ . . 'woo"!
_25.1 .. i H L...1 L........., :, • , ,, • ,1,---1
— I — ' ' • — I>
• ...
/ / 0 ,,,,..c.., L7.----Z ---- 7 h ‘.._1 1— 1 ,,
,',YrIri i ; '''4WE I . 1 L____: PROPOSED
, PROPOSED 4muuslame....
•
I. TH 101 R.O.W.
'I I. 5 . ,--', COLLECTOR
i 6 ,
IF...,—,---7-—r,..., -,•-••••••r-•. ....."•••• ". "''1 7-.----- - '
Sr ' I •i .
I I i 1 I Ict4
ct3 1 044 0
,ANP.
tgl sAvo vit i
\44\ •"(% clr,\...
k •
1 k i P AR
i 44
i 0 44
I
i .
i ..%*******............
I.
i
I •,............._
/
•
FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS_
ALTERNATIVE 3 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND
minim PROPOSED ROADWAY
"Lr"..1"m"m•mmm1% :777°-21111EW
MALL,,, ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' soo'
—
—
Alternative 3
Description
Alternative 3 also provides a 12th Avenue to 13th Avenue loop. To provide
access to the shopping center, 13th Avenue is extended to a new entrance at
._ the front face of the center. A positive barrier along 12th Avenue
extended would prohibit access to the center site from 12th Avenue.
Advantages
—
• Trips to the shopping center from the south will probably use 13th
Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from loading and unloading area around K-Mart
store.
• Road serves as buffer between the residential development and the
shopping mall .
—
• Good access to utilities in place along 12th Avenue extended.
Disadvantages
s Trips from the north to the south entrance may still use 12th Avenue.
15
• ,, ..,'./ z.,,;er„' / / ' , .2 ,, ,/, ____1, LI
.."77,e 751'•:r ! . /77_,.../: ' _____________;/.1 /-.- i
. I
: 40'•
/• / / • 1. \ '::, ',60
.," .../ / / •
60 • 9
i .rj-,, • t----4----;
/' ,:., ; /• '', 1 i ..iii; ! i li
,/
• \ \ ,.3, 1 7-1 : ;-p,.,1 IL
/ ,, 4
.
4/ , ,
z,,--
,-----/--ii--- --,—i
/ 1 r.,--- 1 1 ;
, t----.!---i
/ 7
/ '- / / '1-3I
, ./- , , /
I
'"9/''
.,, ,-
„ /....., ,
•'t1 /7 -.- Sal 2' ; ZS I r"7"7771 I t ! 1 11 1.4
. ',---.4
.
•
. r --I --"1"--77” ----T-- '
r,•••' / k4(1/ tI.
— .-- /
/ • 51%'-'• ---- 1----1-1 1 !1
i I
/ -. ("1.#1° : --1 1
_
; 1." / , 1.---r-1 ri--' 1-----,4
,\
/ , •
. 1...........J
./1 / /
/ : / / . ...........i. (Al I_____.
M 1 l... 1 1 ; i
/ / . ,
/ si / / . ! • ! I : I ,....H
•
/ l'..-••—•1 t---...4--- 1 I' --"'".1 1 ---- S i '1..ILLI 'lL
.^ • X‘• ./ . :L.!.J IS 3‘ ''./4 " : • ''.41E" 1,.......... •••"4 •
C,N . . 1‘. ,,,--,Th,: •
7-77 r—,—, r"----7-7
2 1.__._.) 1 ,
• / ' 7---11-----..-ei•—••—I 1
!
,
, ! L... ! 1 r±
„: .,,, .z MINNESOTA I i :
if-1 . r___A r
n71
/ / VALLEY , ,____i • 0 '
// / / MALL / •
"3-4 I 4`•• Li:
: rj7 5 3
/ / / / ) i k 11--TH
/ / ' /
/ • - i EIMIC I
/ / [II . : I ' y • ! 1 ,
/ ' 3
1 i t H----H r--4— --. --1 1 t
9. v /
.
, ,
../....„..s., / ,, ,.._..
, ,/ J ..„2 . :. 1 ,
g..._ 1...74 _, __... i 7-11 i .11 1
, it 1 1 • . '4 f t---5—, I 1
111-1
i ' •
/ • j a L. ...., Li .: 1 ilLti , 11 , :, 11 ;3
N / / • 111A'''S,.:'5,k // ,Ali IN I I
\'
/ \ / / a k•V ,' •-•----.,_1-7-71
N. / / . is / • 1.zri! 1,-. 3 . . 6 s/I Ls• /2r h AV
. a ,,,,
kN // // -N . „„ •
IL
, ... •
Hs,. ..... / k
> —77 ______ . , •
/ / .,
, :4 ---i, ,
_....„., i__. ._......1 1_4
•
. . .
../ . .
PROPOSED
mmiLi, cr.:1: ! -.,:wk-7 L---. 4. PROPOSED
•
•"...... • •
_
.4 I
1 , TH 101 R.O.W. ,,
,
. 5 . ,'-z,, I , COLLECTOR
-- -7
,
i - -.--7,--- 7--"--.-- '---7 -
1 : 1
A{OCIN IP I sr - i
. ,
• 1 I I I . .
A 1 1 1 ri Ci
7.1114
t4.1 1 I SAVO 571 1 i \si (1111 CD\*
ki
It 1
1 N 0 (C4 P A Fi
ki I 3 . I ii.4 CI. X
7 Q ''''•.,...,....,...............
I..=
••••,............_
)
FIGURE 4 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS_
ALTERNATIVE 4 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND -
1111111141 PROPOSED ROADWAY 71.1.7
'7-7"-+:11111tit
'("'
MALL. ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' 800'
Alternative 4
Description
Alternative 4 also provides a 12th Avenue to 13th Avenue loop. The align-
ment is shifted to the east to allow residential development on both sides
of 12th Avenue extended. To provide access to the shopping center, 13th
Avenue is extended to a new entrance at the front face of the center.
Advantages
• Trips to the shopping center from the south will probably use 13th
Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from the loading and unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
• May require slightly less roadway construction.
• Image from roads may be more "residential " in nature.
Disadvantages
• Trips from north to the south entrance may still use 12th Avenue.
• There is no buffer between residential development and the shopping
mall .
• Access to utilities inplace along the back shopping mall property line
would be difficult.
17
I
1 /
• g-
1 /1
! /
,/, .,... ....- //// / •
G •PS3° i , / ii //// / • I, 1.
s s‘s \,\:ss,21,,,,,,, 1 . 6 1_4. •1 1:1:1"--41,
/ z .•
• / .,' ' / ..• /
,„ , 0. , // 7,,,,, , .._____. ,.___. r- • , 1 - 1
_.0. , i ;___...,____I ,...___•;_ , _
, . • .--11--- •-•.,--, , - ,‹ ,
„ , , „ 0 ..",.."1 ,__I !--1 1- , 1 F------1 r•••- -. . , -
,/ / • / 5 , ____ ,..., I : __I i ; i t_......_ -- ......';.•,,,, :
---7-i
hr- • 1 r-- --• --13-----/ ,14
\
/ / r--.741 1 1-72:1 t—---.7-1 r--- 1 '
/1 / / ' I 7-1
/ : i 1 / - • i i , M '
-1-----1 F------ 1
/ , / / _. i
, ,
, , n.
, ' •
• \'‘' i it21, I, • .
371 A
/4 1$'` 40E71 U..........t..j
/.\
,\\'‘ 'C.•c+. fr....."Th: •
i `4 ' r'''" .....r."7.1 ".• r--
....„ / • ,... .
, • r . 1 i i 1 1 , ----1 t---1-. 1 . ----: ___I
. F--
/ / , i ; 1______ , 1
/ i MINNESOTA VAI EYI , H-1 I—...
f—...7.-.9 A • _ Hi
,,, , , .
1 ,,
/ / , MALL / ; . i 2 IINEVA , ....L. LI: 11111M11:.1
/ / / .
i . ct 1--- .6 4741 ' 6 I t
41
/ / ' / ?
/ / /
/ / •
/ , i____' 1,1 i t I___.• ' "C i . 1
/ j-- -----1 ----
/ ,
' r--H—I [----' ! — _l_.._i • ...___ 1
r7 ,t• f< / ' 1 , 1 — I .b_..., ,..:2LIA F2_ _i • ! H
. ,re , I . 1.-----i-----. —7--'7. 11 • iI il .
/ / .., , •
/ / • i , t , . 3 . ii 4 1 3
....,1 < ,
i = 1 1...:_:_i___-_,I -L_: L.L.,__L...' I • II..
.(••• N., / 4:1''`...)-: / sseimom
/ ••• i / / k-v Y —''
/ *A
, 1 I
A ‘ / ,/ 7 44,/ ! * 2 C ''' 12th AV'
- N / / k vs
es 44/ I li - 1 ..— ,
‘.\ i k\ es •‘''' e : 4 L : : i .•••--,.....„„4.....47"--ak......... *
/ k 0 # .----..-• —4
/ , > 6 •41.1
/ 4 • ---1 ...-----1 ---4
• I.
/ ; !
' / •
* Ss i A -...-' -----1
I ! •------, _I . .
. i . . i , ...:,,,.. 73,:. , ,,,,ss
/ // / Ns...4...
.41 • v
01.
toot. tc,1)
k .
/' / • , ___ li . 1 — t` / /.,,
11...
/
/ ,.....__, ,...0.,
; i----1 - -- ' , ---. I-------
/ 1
• ,
' z/ r • , rki — --- 3
•
, -------- -----i I-- ••—I F.*****--1 ' /
I
•
,- ; • ' cry I4VE i — — PROPOSED I
PROPOSED • •4(
timilimaimilw
TH 101 R.O.W. 5 - ''''-'- ' , 7—H COLLECTOR
, .
I ----:------"---"1---- -.17--—- - L
iFl%
• i r----r---1----7 1,k' lli , 11
1 , i1111 , !i...4 1 1 I 1 4\\il 1 0
(1:4 ;•-•A Ft
X
0 al:C I
i CC C/3
I CI. 0 "•
1 )1 .*44.'"".••„......4....
1 •
i •
I "••••,........__
: 1
•
FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS-
ALTERNATIVE 5 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL .
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND _
11111111M PROPOSED ROADWAY 71...77 1% ';1-""Illitii.Y
MALL ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' 800'
L/
Alternative 5
Description
Alternative 5 emphasizes the importance of 13th Avenue by extending it to a
new shopping center entrance at the front face of the center. It deempha-
sizes 12th Avenue by ending it in a cul-de-sac. A positive barrier along
12th Avenue would prohibit access to the center site from 12th Avenue.
With a distance of 150 to 200 feet maintained between 13th Avenue extended
and the TH 101 right-of-way, development could occur on both sides of the
•— road.
Advantages
• Trips to the south entrance to the shopping center are forced to use
13th Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from the loading and unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
• 12th Avenue serves as a buffer between the residential development and
the shopping center.
• Good access to utilities in place along the back property line of
shopping mall .
Disadvantages
• 12th Avenue is long cul-de-sac.
19
/„//,,/ -330,.../.-
/
....., 1 „4 .
' /""- 1 / 3
,,Ey' •••Ai•7/- .-••••—• 1
__;__. 40. or- _ grx,,----••—•—•------;'-'---- :/'// . ,,)i. ,, •,,
140 t -
":: / - „„.• ,...• /
•„/ / / • .,
f
-- i.---, ,
-2-il----
. .
GO •,6-or / / 1 .. i' l 1-4,
,,,cP' • ,
/ Ca- / • I ,----i”
,
,u ,
,
../ /•//
---1! ,-I
/ z / / 4
• / „,- , „,
i
• .
1 , , ,
../ ../ / /, i /OM j t '41E1 q,
--.„,r
F7-77---11
,-, / •
0* 1-----1---1 I -
1-----4
..., ,
... , ,,,,-- . 1
/ •
Z,-/ ._..— _—.......— --___ _.
, , --•—' r---- i ,
/ /
/ /
'--1
, 7
i• .4 , , i__.. <___;...."-.1V, ____L___...1 . .__:..... (!_l I_____:, . s.:
--.----1 I E . __.i..... .
1--- , ,
; is, , /
, „ .,„, . I : --1 -, L.--i— , 1 i i
!,---, E
1 , -i [- I
• ,
1 /s;
C . '1.
` . -
r --7'
! ‘ .
' :
2 1 ! 177 F7777 ,„ 1 r -77- --777-1 ,+ i 1..
‘, / /
/ /
/ /
/ . ;
, I
, ;-
• ! —I I ; I 1-----Ir-----1 '• ! ;
:
MINNESOTA i
/ / VALLEY ! .•
. , i 1111111N • • i i 1_141
/ / • MALL
/1' i'
, „,34 plum • ,
--. 1---- 1 ,----.,_21.
/ / ,, rt MEW r-- ! f-H-6-4 ' 6 ''-' ,,
77, , ,
„ , , ,
, . "--"-LA ____ 1
„ . „
".., .,/ 1 i . ........._., , , ,
/
1 , I
/ I / 1 S 1 j ,.. 1 '3..... .2...12...4 11.2*_jr••••—1 { , 1--:1
/ Ay I / H--1----
i .• I • . < . ' .. i
... --1 I
j a I 1 a 2 1 I . / 3 a. 4 1 •"—r..' 3 .
„. / ”‹ 'L.J.3.,._:_ j
A. \\. // ' `‘,....:'*>,‘ /; $1111111116
/ 7,1111% .., , „/, ,..,_, --..--,
''' 47 --.. t 2 I M I I ,
/...\ N. i `,, ..4 7 **/
: : . L.... I , : 1 I 3 6 /3 3\ 33s / /2th Atil
-
: ---,--,--4,
•• • k,--<
..... .... ., , r ,, ----1 ____--,--i • \ 1 i-,,
..., . / ., . •40,
.. i /
ir • ..,..._.1
'1 .t. W
// / , /i 31 a os. I _____;----1 ----.. i
*t ..... •
/// / N / .(e3i ---1------4 i.-----1 ----1-• -; `-`<-`141 / ''!
,/ , •
/ \/ _,
• 3 1
1 •_Id / / ..----3-31 L
* ,
0 . .- I i__ ..: LI / .,.. , .a.1 t----31
*
,.,..d" —I 1 - . --,-......*...;_. 1 I ,
' 43 .000.1140 : ...-,a' a ----'3.-3 —
/ PROPOSED . • .; . :
t I•insiineessonssumil•' /377'' '11V6- 1_____ PROPOSED
TH 101 R.O.W.et
,
—
s .i---.
---\
P--
----,---1---ri—T-7-- 7-1-1---
i ,...:
Atairid • , • . i
' tt •I
I
it
ea i
! 1 SAND I Sn 1
N0% I
isi cp\..
. .1,. (.0 0 A R
.,...q NS
tC4I I i !
! CC 0) I t
.1...
01 / %%%'**...„..........
..
"................_ 1
I
FIGURE 6 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSI°
ALTERNATIVE 6 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND
amingsi PROPOSED ROADWAY 71.7 1
r:r"-+;11illtittr
MALL. ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' SOO' .1%
'
4/
MEM
Alternative 6
Description
13th Avenue would be extended to a new shopping center entrance at the
front face of the center. The alignment of a portion of 13th Avenue would
be adjacent to the TH 101 right-of-way. There would be no direct connec-
tion between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue. A positive barrier along 12th
Avenue would prohibit access to the shopping center from 12th Avenue.
Advantages
• Trips to the south entrance to the shopping center are forced to use
13th Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from the loading and unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
• 12th Avenue serves as a buffer between the residential development and
the shopping center.
• 13th Avenue serves as a buffer between the residential development and
TH 101 .
• Good access to utilities in place along the back property line of
shopping mall .
Disadvantages
• 12th Avenue is long cul-de-sac.
21
z "440../r
/ i / • // j r ---4 .1,..,
/0-- zzzli .__.--------— *•,/ \ \ •
---._-_.-.-._-_-.
10'. z ,/ / /' / / \ ',,, \ to • .
z / / •
- / / • r',..1
oti1C' i x' _r<1 ----1r•—•1
, , / ----1-,--• ,---0--1,‘„i
,
•• tovi
/. cP•GC/..
• 041 ' , \ /
, ,x,,e1,, ,., 1 ____,61:FH: rLirri
/ , / / .,./
.
7/ ,/ 4 \--:\ \.,,,,*---%. ) • __. r_Alt
/ .
. ) L- 7 l' --.2 1-1r-1.
. ,. f•'•-•—•,...___4........_i Hf..._
(101:-‘,1
. i ',*ar'i I • ' I, ' 1 1 , iLza
..,-- ,- , ,• / --5°6--2-' t !
/.... "."77,03
2 I :I ..1 f 2
... , .. ,
, .._
, , „,. • /-- .,•,-, , ! 1 i —•-„,-.:._ /7/ • .
'------ii-- .
AN
5:". '----I 1 '. *••• / ' •
y rz
---- ---..... —
--1 1 I— I . ,...,/X.,.. 1
/- / / , Z i I ..____.jI s/
/ /
/ /
•
1 T .14 'i , + 1 L — i i-
,-•', t i_.... .._,,.....___ r_t___..1 LI .
1 ,
.//1,
/„. t,, , , .
;/ , 4 ____H____ ,____
I , ....i ..._ ...4 ...1
I I_ ,....._.
X.,
: xx. .,
(.
,----r--71
• , .C• i ;,4, 1---i
. 177-77 ! • • I i 'i-- -i ' I ' • ' .4.
‘-',. •
1 1 •
. : 1 1 I-. -".i-----1 ---.L- • Tj
,
I
MINNESOTA /
MALL I .. .
,
• . 1
i, 1 . .4 , ' .. L_____. .1.
i i CI , . .
,---.
. il —.--
t t ; !
?---441
% -••• l_i---.: ?---4- -
/
i; .' • L____: -----4-1 r ,5 ,g . 8 q 7
(// / / 1 -1-11 1 •
I ! 1 A
, , •
, , .
, 1
„ r .
i „. , ...-- i„.„---- --] r_i---__.„--__I L___,__1 __1-'
c,.3,,,, , ,, ,,, ,
/ / _ , - ,
Hit2-71 F-71 1 k "1 1 5 —I i .1 1 i
1
------"`-- N // // /
71114,N / • i 1 11 , 51 ' II ?. 1 311 ..1 ' :.%. L .3i ,
'"...,..lak ///,/ II I iii
/ ‘\• / / 3: k•ai Y'. /".7 10------1 A 5 /J ( 5 i2ts A
, ,. / • 7 /
. ,
/ / \,.. .
K N, / / k\ 6. 4.../. 4•4, 7-71 7771L...4_4 •----(,,,...<)---..1
66
go ---. ,""-------, i I ! i I 2 ,, ; • 6
1
N • ,/ //' > -
. , , ,____, h____, ! , , ,4, • , ,- , ‘.
. .s. — • ,
• r ----1
1 , ,
N. / ,
.
s: • _....._i i____ j . a , 44.477,:,...'7.'•••-.. \
+; ---1-----j /""--*----1 '—• / ,c?'441
1
,./ . . ---,, _•••_ ,•,„,,, ,.___....,
• 3
••to .•
••• , L'—';
/ / / . • ,' : 4c i i ' __.1 ' • / ' ‘‘. .__.4 '3y, ,
/ • ,
, / • , .-----.." ----I 1---- , , -7...L.•:-2-L2:_; I I
• . z
(1.1C PROPOSED
fr/ / PROPOSED .
. **to _ pt
el 1 TH 101 R.O.W. ....._
.,._.-—,------r_r---..-- ---..,_r --- -
,1400140' I, 1 sr MIIIIIIIIIIIII?1,
4.1 CI
13
1 1 Ib. \a, 1(101 %mai
A F
1 21
1441 1 1 ibl 0 Clk.
cl 1 . 1 Ft-'4' CL, =
i 0 <
I I
1 " *ft
' '•%3/4*%. ..,
I
/ . ft•
, I
...,,,._
1 .
FIGURE 7 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE 7 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND —
111111111/1 PROPOSED ROADWAY rumL:".".1
i ' %
800' r,fm+itirviT
41" "" MALL ENTRANCE 0 200' 400'
44
Alternative 7
Description
13th Avenue would be extended to a new shopping center entrance at the
front face of the center. With a distance of 150 to 200 feet maintained
between 13th Avenue extended and the TH 101 right-of-way, development could
occur on both sides of the road. The cul-de-sacs providing access to resi-
dential development are shifted to the east to allow development on both
sides.
Advantages
• Trips to the south entrance to the shopping center are forced to use
13th Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from the loading and unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
Disadvantages
• May be less efficient in development.
• Poor access to utilities inplace along the back property line of
shopping center.
• No buffer is provided between residential development and shopping
center or between residential development and TH 101 .
23
.
i
/ I' ' •/"?•°./7 / / -/
/ / ./ z.ci..r;
•
; "IP V'' • /.//// / 41` .
„../ ..- •
ta° i S ' / / • , _,-,,,e---1 1‘
,h—
,.0, 1 - •
v1 / _...- • ----1
/ P
, / 1
/ ...„," • ' - / /
--:,:::-::-‘-‘`'..„-\"\71:-\• 1,;17 A 177.41. '1.
4
/
/ ,
/ Z / I ,- I 1----4-
/
/ --
//',,/ 14, V, 1
.., ..."
...t. ...-
••••• 1 7777 ! :1._..1. 1 , [ , _
i _ ----.7.-- . —7---1
7 7.., -.,
-.. '---._
I /' 1------
1 , t•—...,___..., i......_
- 1 / I •
i L_____L.,...1 k.,_.:4-.., •
/ % \ ' 1-10 i E trA _____.----1
i /1
/ , , / / i ,
--, ' .1 L-11 1,ji... i [---'71
i / L•4, / ., •• , i ,
, ,./ 1 '
, - 9 i e• ' , 1
ik$111111 ;
./<,... • x>,' '46,'" , 1.21 , !3, 3,./Am, , 1.-“.4017:‘ 1.....L.:,...........,...-: i—... .;---.4
4...„.......:, . lot,
' 'C' ** I ,i1 ! r71 1777 7777 LT7-1 I-7777 " I 1 t•-
/ • „,„/ ! HH , ----H t •-'' t- H i 1 1---:--- -1._ r LI
I --, I--
I i.---!
,/ / 441VINNESOTA I
/ i 46' VALLEY ! 0 =4
1 ! i i—iMi t--4----, r—,
i .
! .
' I 2 Ott§ ,____• z _ Li' cll L- ---i44 i
i : 1 • Li.. — 1,---":' 1 6 i 1 7i
1- 111M - '''c r---- ' L ,-- , ! ..,.
1--------: , ,
, e# ‘,.. . •
. --i ---1----1 i---4.--i F----i--
. /•• , , , , ,•:. i . , ,<:. . , L2_,•„...._;—•••-4
,' N(..., ,' • , I. -_.4.......] 1 _......1 ,---1 : . i r., ,
• , . • : , •
,,
,___., ,..„......._, .
. , i , ,•-••. ,0.----44.
•-...• /, 1 1 i I 1 I.-. 3 I L.L2.i Lt_......0 i
, ,
\‘, (,,;,..;.‘ / ,/„*.memos
/ •,, `• / / . •. --....,
1 A. \ / / -s...
--,.._
,..., •
• se
wag
es , */
,44,
I 7-7.731 rrn 1 i 1 5 .1 '\ $
rt--...-.1 12th 41/
i.... .... / / .... 0 **D. — • 1___"'"'"---- ......t"--
.. • 1----7 ----- -"i i ---1
I ‘-,. • ; il
•
0 ---1 !--------I " AN, ...; / • ',,
-• / / •
/ r s :--, _____.
/ • •0 i
.1.
j / ,, / N / •'II. :-4,-1 _:,. r.---, i i a
• L (r)! ------1.__..._i H..i--i —_____, ,/ , ''(4i i/--W
/ , 4%oli •
•
/ ,_______I 3 I ------___.. h.------..., .--- . f- fi ' -x -----, L
• , s • ./
• • • — -— —4' ---
---.
i__ •
•
, •• ' ' .'hIvE! : ! - - - ' I PROPOSED L
. PROPOSED • . ,
• 44 ... ,
• Inuoummeguie 43r* ; ' ' . •
el I TH 101 R.O.W. ,,, 1 5—..._______..._ ______
. -----'- ' ' . ' ;COLLECTOR \
.....—_____. ___.
e— 1 ,
i i • ' (7,1 JL_ s I i lb;
. ott_ ____';_, ,...._:...--.-L— 1
1.4 .
1"-----7-1-11 MOM" lk
. it Ca
44! LLI 'AMP.•
•
•
i`ti I I S.' 0 .s. r
, .,,i ,r N. s
\II 0) (451;\.
I Lit .-.--.7.-'..-7---1---- 1 bi
.
I i 1 raj CL, =
L
, . .
.. Q '''•
! .1.444•40.............
1 .....! I
i
FIGURE 8 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS-
ALTERNATIVE 8 MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND —
Imillial PROPOSED ROADWAY
alintY
MALL ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' 800'
-- Alternative 8
Description
Under Alternative 8, 13th Avenue is extended entirely around the perimeter
of the shopping center site, ending near the north entrance to the center.
A new entrance at the south end of the shopping center would be established
at the front face of the center. 12th Avenue would end in a cul-de-sac
without a direct connection to 13th Avenue. A positive barrier would prohi-
bit access to the shopping center site from 12th Avenue.
Advantages
• Trips to the south entrance to the shopping center are forced to use
13th Avenue.
• Removes through traffic from the loading and unloading area around the
K-Mart Store.
• 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue serve as buffers between the residential
development and the shopping center and TH 101 .
• Good access to utilities inplace along the back property line of
shopping mall .
Disadvantages
• Requires extensive roadway construction without significant improvement
in accessibility.
• 12th Avenue is long cul-de-sac.
25
Comparative Evaluation
In this section, each of the alternatives is scored according to the degree
to which it responds to the identified critical issues. The scoring system
uses a scale of 0 to 2. A zero (0) indicates that the alternative does not
materially address the issue. A one ( 1 ) indicates that the alternative is
of some value in addressing the issue. A two (2) indicates that the alter-
native is relatively successful in addressing the issue.
Comparative Evaluation Table --
Alternative
Issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
• The City of Shakopee
1 . Safe and efficient traffic flow on nearby 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
roads
2. Safe and efficient traffic flow at Valley 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 --
Mall entrances
3. Compatibility with planned roadway 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
improvements
4. Development of vacant land in accord with 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2
City ordinances and in a manner compatible
with the best interests of the City as a
whole
• Residents of Neighborhoods Adjacent to Valley
Mal I
5. Minimization of traffic volumes on resi- 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
dential streets
6 . Convenient access to nearby commercial 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
areas
• Owners, Operators and Tenants of Valley Mall
7 . Convenient and identifiable access from 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
all directions to Valley Mall
• Owner and Developer of Vacant Property
Adjacent to Valley
8 . Efficient utilization of available land 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
for development
9. Minimization of investment in roadways 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
and utilities
TOTAL 6 10 14 12 15 16 13 14
26
V I . RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 achieve the highest scores in the com-
parative evaluation. The alternatives are very similar.
Each places a strong emphasis on using 13th Avenue, the street designated
by the City as an east-west collector. Each relocates the south entrance
-" to the shopping center in a way which takes through traffic away from the
side and back of the K-Mart Store. Each provides adequate entrance capacity
for the shopping center.J/ Each is fully compatible with both existing
-- and proposed roadway plans.
It is recommended that Alternative 6 be selected. Alternative 6 is favored
—
for one reason . When developing residential property adjacent to a non-
compatible use (commercial and freeway, in this case) , a roadway adjacent
to the non-compatible use provides a buffer. With the roadway in place,
residential backyards, which are typically used for leisure and recreation
purposes, are at a maximum distance from the non-compatible use.
The implementation of the recommended solution does not require the exten-
-- s i on of Polk Street (CSAH 69) either to the north or to the south of the
existing construction.
Interim Solution
The successful implementation of the recommended solution depends on the
extension of 13th Avenue to the East, at least to County Road 15. Without
that connection to County Road 15, trips from the East will continue to use
12th Avenue.
Since it may be some time before the extension of 13th Avenue is made, an
interim solution is proposed which is easily adaptable to the recommended
alternative, but which does allow vehicles to enter the shopping center
from 12th Avenue.
The interim solution (Figure 9 ) calls for temporary access to the shopping
center from 12th Avenue via a roadway to be constructed adjacent to the
K-Mart Store property. This interim solution does separate through traffic
from the loading/unloading activity and shopping activity at the K-Mart
Store. The interim solution will not divert shopping center traffic from
12th Avenue.
1/ Level of Service "A" can be maintained at the entrances even if the
center 100 percent leased.
27
, 11'/'/ ?
Vet .,.// . L.
.,-/i):
, ..... ___.
/,/ L___-------------// / --- \ -
,„ .7.7. / , •
• . ' / / __,,,•-•"1 '
• / / / / . r 4----i
. •okc , e /
/ ./ / / „/f , • •• --4. j 1 :: ! :: ci51
/ / / '' :'"•''-'' ' ''' ,}7:".:! , ' I-14
/ s• / / ,---"- i i
/". , / / • k loth i i '40-7,1 1 . ' ' i 1-7""L•1 '
1.----i'
...........4."7./' ,../ / /. /
z..." r.10. .e.r<1 ! ---t -----4 ir-----;!----1 r•----' .`" - ' ' ---', i ,
/ 7
I7,./. ---- ---- .----
/ / ?----,--
,,, / / i i ----- r-L.._.
1
„ , /
/ , , ,
, /
, ,\
• • 'l :.."2-11
,
h_. ..... Ilin q
. -_ ,.. .t1
/ , /
I /
i I . ' ,,
/„. . xv "MI,” ! . '"41- !iEy‘• 1...1.! _,..2:- ----:--i
N /• ••0. ,----- r-----i
i ,;.-d
/ 1 i 77 1-7-1 77---1 : .,r7-1:-.7 1"-",---771 I ‘"•.--7771 1.... 1
/ / ' ../ ,, r--- ' i -1 1 --I H _1 -."--1 i._ .-1
,
/
/ ,,
• ----i-:' r-- , __,_ , .
, , , MINNESOTA I
i-1 1 i kl 1---"---‘• r----.1. h I
/ / VALLEY
/;
1 : I...4'2 MIAi
i i--....
1-__. 4—'4i' L_ L._ L------___,:5 1 r---7-: }•___IT•
i
7 ,./ , ( •zt
• , • T . [ I [ i 1------[ i 7 [
. r
"// ,
,,,,,i, ,„ ,,,
i I - 1 i .....__ 1
y , / (0 L21_'... ..._:_._, , -- i - i _2.-_.,-...-i h.. _
. , ,
, , ; ,, v.. , - , • , 3 ' II ' • i I 3 —1 f—,
,./ ./ it I , I . i4 '
'-:, / / • **'- // miming ":"--i - I 1--;--LL-.'
•,,:-.;>•:, , •vs
/ ‘•• , // ..,0_ .c.,,,/ ,-402-7....,
, /
-.. , /
t... a* ..• I 777 1 Ft, I I I , 1 •
V\‘.-- / / • '• ' ] . ' 6 5 i i2th A V,
:
-,,N... I*<itt,,,
*##1 0 i
* ,. ... .-...-... 1 -... .....---I I-.. , _‘,...<
\ \
I •. // //x
> ..... i 1....-! Li I , I 2\ / :, 0
I.
1 • / , ---I
---:-....7.1 ...___ 1 I 1.... ----,..s...,,, 4, , '-','--,..‘,
. I • I
•
, ,
/ / ..,// • 0 • *1
— ---- , i —.4 -.. ---*1/ • ----, :
''' ---1i4'c' ".'
"..-L . -1 t--- _11. ,....-.. i r•-. 1 I.
// ' • ,,
/ / ,' • ,
• / • , k 1 r - , , IT- 3 ,CJ 4,--7-, 1!. .---1
---.Z. ' 4 j--- ----4 r - ' / •, - , -4 i I
; • - ' '› '
, , • ,
. , ,, • R., L 1 ,ii i
e*.
/ / PROPOSED . -• •
• *EitiosumarsirmiliS ,.:57.* 'AvE7 ' PROPOSED I
TH 101 R.O.W.
_
5 . ' ' COLLECTOR
,
7- 7 ,--- -.
, ., ,sr 1 . i F 0,
4cove
1 r--T-7---7--_ / • rig
" et
4..IM
el I e CI
--L.Hal
I 0 (12 A Fi
I it4 al• X
0 < '
1
1 Cr U3 '
O. 0 •*
, ....%**•*.............
i 1
I a.,..
I
A I ...4.1%........._
. .
FIGURE 9 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS.
ALTERNATIVE 6 (INTERIM) MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
LEGEND • ......
11111.111/11 PROPOSED ROADWAY .
_11% atIEW
MALL ENTRANCE 0 200' 400' soo'
,_) ,r.-
AGREEMENT
J C
AGREEMENT
Agreement made by and between VALLEYFAIR, INC. ,
hereinafter referred to as "Valleyfair" , a Minnesota corporation
located at One Valleyfair Drive , Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 , and
the City of Shakopee, hereinafter referred to as "the City" .
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, Valleyfair operates an amusement park located
within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has claimed the nature of Valleyfair ' s
business is such that it requires excess services from the City;
and
WHEREAS , the City has considered various alternatives
for collecting additional money from Valleyfair , such as an
annual license fee on transient theme parks , to cover these
excess services.
NOW, THERFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as
follows :
1. Valleyfair shall voluntarily pay the City the sum of
Eight Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($8 ,000. 00) annually ,commen ° � 1
came„
. v 4.a , ref1. 6-C,,,6,1,".uvt- �. I
on May 1, 1981, and each year thereafterNon May 1 for as 10 as 601 ;
this Agreement remains in effect.
2. The City shall continue to provide all police and
other services it has provided and currently provides to
Valleyfair as Valleyfair shall require, and any other services
Valleyfair may require in the future which are available to other
taxpayers within the City.
3. The City recognizes that Valleyfair has no further
obligation to the City outside of this Agreement for all police
and other services provided by the City to Valleyfair , except for
existing property taxes and license and inspection fees , and
the City shall not seek , by ordinance or otherwise, to obtain any
additional sums from Valleyfair for such services.
4. The annual amount specified in Paragraph 1 above is
an amount bargained for and agreed upon by the parties hereto in
consideration of many factors and is not intended as a verifica-
tion or admission of the fair and reasonable value of excess ser-
vices rendered by the City to Valleyfair . Valleyfair ' s position
remains that no amount is necessary to cover costs of any such
excess services.
5. For purposes of this Agreement excess services shall
mean those services which the City has claimed it provided or •
currently provides to Valleyfair for which the City claims it is
not fully reimbursed by way of Valleyfair ' s presently existing
property taxes and license fees.
6. If the City attempts to levy or collect sums in
excess of that provided in Paragraph 3 above, Valleyfair may
terminate this Agreement immediately and without notice.
-1 . Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a
waiver by Valleyfair of its right to challenge any attempt by the
City to levy or collect sums from Valleyfair in excess of that
provided in Paragraph 3 above.
8. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving
written notice on or before January 1 of the year termination
shall take effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed on the dates indicated.
VALLEYFAIR, , INC.
Dated:] /', W `, Bye 4c-41/c.:/ Air. -
Its -2.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Dated: By
Its
-2-
E
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Appointment to the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
DATE: May 21, 1981
At the meeting of the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee held May 21, 1981, the
members of the committee recommended that the City Council appoint
Bill Berens to the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee as a voting member.
Action Requested:
City Council appoint Bill Berens as a voting member to the Ad Hoc Downtown
Committee.
jiw
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall Clayton K.Larson
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 President and Chief Operating Officer
Telephone(612)330-6018
May 20 , 1981 RECEIVED
Mr Walter Harbeck , Mayor
MAY 2 6 1981
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue CITY OF SHAKOPE5
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr Harbeck •
I am in receipt of the jointly signed letter dated May 5 ,
1981 , from you and Wallace Bishop regarding the City ' s
desire to serve all NSP customers located within the City
of Shakopee . You asked that I consider creating a committee
to discuss the matter with you .
I have designated John Mertz , General Manager , Normandale
Division , and Ralph Bartel , Manager , Power Interchange Relations
as a two-man committee to negotiate with you . They may enlist
the assistance of other employees to participate in certain
aspects of the negotiations . I have asked them to keep me
informed as to the progress of the discussions .
I would hope that the discussions can explore alternatives to
acquisition for two reasons . First , NSP would prefer to con-
tinue serving its customers in the City . Second , our customers
in the past have threatened litigation if any sale occurs
which they do not consent to . Suffice to say , NSP would desire
an amiable solution for all the concerned parties .
At the same time , we are cognizant of your strong preference
for acquisition , and will enter discussions for the purpose of
accomplishing a mutual agreement and not for the purpose of
prolonging the inevitable . Please feel free to contact me if
you believe the discussions are not meeting this objective .
When our committee has completed a preliminary study of the
compensation factors set forth in Minnesota Statutes 216B ,
they will contact you as to a meeting date . Hopefully this
should be within the next two weeks .
Sincerely
;)/g--;24/2-1, �
•
/ C1a ton K Lai son
cc Wallace Bishop
D W McCarthy
R S Bartel
J H Mertz